newyorker--2020-02-20--What to Do in N.Y.C. This Weekend: February 21st to 25th

These are our top picks for the weekend of February 21st to 23rd .
For more event listings and reviews , check out Goings On About Town .
Low-budget collecting—the result of Mitchell Algus ’ s online research into artists of mysterious origins and minor reputations—is the generative curatorial premise of a wildly eclectic exhibition , “ Acquired on eBay , ” at the gallerist ’ s namesake space on the Lower East Side .
The stark landscape “ Gray Day , ” from 1927 , by Aline Meyer Liebman ( whose paintings were championed by Alfred Stieglitz ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twenty-five dollars on eBay ; a 1958 canvas of a lithe figure in a fantastic forest , by the African-American Surrealist James Wilson Edwards , was discovered at an estate sale .
The dense arrangement of bargain treasures makes a point about the irrational vagaries of the art market , but more interesting are the surprising social , sexual , and aesthetic connections that Algus makes through his savvy juxtapositions and with the related display of books and ephemera.—Johanna Fateman For more art reviews , click here .
Fatoumata Diawara ’ s videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but , even if you were to remove the visual elements from her work , the Malian artist ’ s music would still be luminous .
Her Grammy-nominated album , “ Fenfo , ” from 2018 , is a clear example of how she embraces brightness : she amplifies African rhythms and Wassoulou traditions of storytelling with her deep , commanding voice and unrelenting electric guitars , which rip through her songs like beautiful streaks of lightning .
She performs Friday night at Town Hall.—Julyssa Lopez For more night-life listings , click here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual revolution is in full bloom , and Bob ( Joél Pérez ) and Carol ( Jennifer Damiano ) are at a clothing-optional retreat center in California , where a weekend of Tai Chi and primal-scream therapy has propelled the married couple to embrace polyamory .
This does not sit well with Ted ( Michael Zegen ) and Alice ( Ana Nogueira ) , their buttoned-up best friends .
The transgressive and funny movie version of “ Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice , ” directed , fifty years ago , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deliciously zany musical ( presented by the New Group , at the Pershing Square Signature Center ) , with deliberately groovy tunes by Duncan Sheik and Amanda Green ( featuring Suzanne Vega as the Band Leader ) and a book by Jonathan Marc Sherman .
The perennial questions the work explores—about love , desire , and commitment—still resonate , and remain unanswered , even if the subject matter no longer shocks .
In the age of cuddle parties and swiping right , are we laughing at Mazursky ’ s New Age libertines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more theatre reviews , click here .
For nearly a quarter century , the Portuguese director Pedro Costa has been filming dramas set in the Lisbon neighborhood of Fontainhas , where many immigrants live in substandard conditions—and he has developed a virtual stock company of the area 's residents , who portray themselves , or versions of themselves , in blends of documentary and fiction .
His latest film , “ Vitalina Varela , ” opens Friday at Lincoln Center ; the title is the name of the film ’ s protagonist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspects of her own life story ( which she discussed in Costa ’ s 2014 film “ Horse Money ” ) , as she travels from her native Cape Verde to Lisbon to visit her husband , who is on his deathbed .
—Richard Brody For more movie reviews , click here .
Charles Curtis , a cellist whose work combines spellbinding intensity and beguiling beauty , is having a moment : in December , he anchored a cross-country tour dedicated to music by the French composer Éliane Radigue , and last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Saltern label .
On Friday and Saturday evening , at Issue Project Room , he presents the première of “ Orpheus Variations , ” a new Alvin Lucier piece for solo cello , seven woodwinds , and seven dancers .
Lucier ’ s “ Glacier , ” for unaccompanied cello , completes the bill.—Steve Smith For more classical-music listings , click here .
Compagnie Hervé Koubi—a bunch of strapping guys from North Africa and Burkina Faso , always shirtless , who can spin on their hands and their heads and catapult one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal .
The surprise is its restraint , a habitual slowness that ’ s poetically absorbing—until it proves aesthetically stuck .
In “ Les nuits barbares , ou les premiers matins du monde , ” at the Joyce tonight through Sunday , February 23rd , the company counters the fear of foreigners with an identity that transcends borders .
Metallic ears on bejewelled masks are removed and wielded like knives as the men face off to sacred music by Mozart and Fauré , but no one gets hurt.—Brian Seibert For more dance listings @ @ @ @

These are our top picks for the weekend of March 6th-8th. For more event listings and reviews, check out Goings On About Town.
Art work by José Clemente Orozco / Courtesy ARS / SOMAAP / MOMA
The Whitney’s thumpingly great show “Vida Americana: Mexican Muralists Remake American Art, 1924-1945” picks an overdue art-historical fight. The usual story of those two decades revolves around young aesthetes striving to absorb European modernism. What to do with the mighty legacy of the era’s big three Mexican painters, Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros? As little as possible has seemed the rule, despite the seminal influence of Orozco and Siqueiros on the young Jackson Pollock. With some two hundred works by sixty artists and abundant documentary material, the curator Barbara Haskell reweaves the sense and sensations of the era to bring it alive.—Peter Schjeldahl
For more art reviews, click here.
For our Spring Art Preview, click here.
Photograph by Hanna-Katrina Jedrosz
The glamorously intelligent post-punk that was incubated in English art colleges forty years ago is reconstituted with panache in Dry Cleaning: it’s almost shocking to hear lyrics referencing not Margaret Thatcher but Meghan Markle. This young London quartet is effortlessly magnetic and impossibly British, with an ace card in Florence Shaw—a vocalist who rarely deigns to sing but, rather, presents her lyrics as if engaged in an apathetic phone conversation. After making its American début at Saint Vitus, on Friday, the band plays Union Pool the following night.—Jay Ruttenberg
For more night-life listings, click here.
For our Spring Night-Life Preview, click here.
Photograph by Heami Lee for The New Yorker
There has never been a better time to eat a meatless hamburger. The current surge of interest in plant-based diets has sparked an arms race of sorts. Since 2008, the chef Amanda Cohen has been the force behind Dirt Candy, the first vegetarian restaurant to hold its own in New York’s fine-dining landscape. Cohen had never served a veggie burger before Andrea Kerzner, a South African philanthropist looking for ways to fight climate change, cold-called her to propose that they collaborate on a restaurant built around one, but she was game to try. Last November, they opened Lekka Burger, in Tribeca.—Hannah Goldfield
For more restaurant reviews, click here.
Photograph by Sara Krulwich / NYT / Redux
In 1997, a woman named Dana Higginbotham was abducted by an ex-convict and member of the Aryan Brotherhood. He dragged her from motel to motel around the South for five months, abusing her physically and mentally. Higginbotham happens to be the mother of the playwright Lucas Hnath, who turned the story into a play. And not just any play—“Dana H.” (at the Vineyard) is a channelling, an exorcism, and a tribute. The brilliant concept is that the actress Deirdre O’Connell, alone onstage, lip-synchs—with virtuosic precision—to edited segments of interviews with the actual Dana H. Directed by Les Waters with chilling precision and his usual skill for creating an eerie atmosphere, this production is as stunning as it is harrowing.—Elisabeth Vincentelli
For more theatre reviews, click here.
For our Spring Theatre Preview, click here.
Photograph from Universal Pictures / Album / Alamy
Alfred Hitchcock depended greatly on the art and the acumen of female collaborators, including his wife, Alma Reville, a screenwriter and editor, and Joan Harrison, a writer and producer. Their work is brought into the fore in Film Forum’s series “The Women Behind Hitchcock,” which also includes movies by other directors, including Robert Siodmak, a film-noir specialist whose harsh and cynical vision of wartime New York, “Phantom Lady,” from 1944, was produced by Harrison. It screens on Saturday and four more times before the series ends, on March 19th.—Richard Brody
For more movie reviews, click here.
For our Spring Movies Preview, click here.
Photograph by Alexander Polzin
The Talea Ensemble performs the U.S. première of Toshio Hosokawa’s “Futari Shizuka,” a chamber opera based on a Noh play about a spirit that enters a woman’s body. It uses Western- and Noh-style singing to differentiate between the two characters, and it appears on a double bill with another chamber opera about possession: George Benjamin’s “Into the Little Hill,” a striking, minimalist setting of the Pied Piper legend in which two singers assume all the roles. On Saturday evening, James Baker conducts the cast and ensemble in a semi-staged concert at the 92nd Street Y.—Oussama Zahr
For more classical-music listings, click here.
For our Spring Classical-Music Preview, click here.
Photograph by Rahi Rezvani
Nederlands Dans Theatre, based in The Hague, is one of the most prestigious contemporary-dance ensembles in Europe, if not the world. Its reputation is rooted, in part, in the long artistic residency of the choreographer Jiří Kylián. The current program doesn’t include any Kylián, but the four choreographers on it are in many ways his heirs. Gabriela Carrizo, from Argentina, has created a fragmented Bergmanesque narrative, “The Missing Door,” revolving around a death and set in a bleak, hotel-like space. “Walk the Demon” is one of Marco Goecke’s twitchy, insect-like essays in movement. And, from the two in-house choreographers, Sol León and Paul Lightfoot, we get “Shut Eye,” a fantasy made of light and shadow.—Marina Harss
For more dance listings, click here.
For our Spring Dance Preview, click here.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Reasons I Said Sorry Today

Reasons I Said Sorry Today

Disrupted my cat ’ s sleep by trying to turn off my alarm .
Bumped into the wall on my way to the bathroom .
Didn ’ t feed my cat right away .
Started giving my coffee order while the barista was looking directly at me but was not listening yet .
Someone hit me with his umbrella .
Someone sat on me on the train .
Entered the bathroom as someone was leaving .
Left the bathroom as someone was entering .
Took twenty minutes to reply to an e-mail .
Refilled my water bottle in the spacious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a very separate area .
The tea-maker spilled tea on my shoe .
Took twenty seconds to reply to a text .
Reminded my boss that we had a meeting .
Got interrupted in the meeting .
Couldn ’ t answer an e-mail right away because I was in the meeting .
Someone knocked my phone out of my hand in the elevator .
Didn ’ t know where a street was when an older man asked for directions .
Browsed an aisle at a store while wearing a backpack .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the hostess when a family of four was looking for a table for dinner .
Couldn ’ t split queso because I ’ m lactose intolerant and then ended up splitting the queso anyway .
Hadn ’ t heard that podcast or read that book or seen any of those tweets or that movie .
Didn ’ t know who that actor was .
Or that one .
Couldn ’ t figure out where the bathroom was .
Had to wake up my cat to get into bed .

Disrupted my cat’s sleep by trying to turn off my alarm.
Bumped into the wall on my way to the bathroom.
Opened my shower curtain too vigorously.
Didn’t feed my cat right away.
Started giving my coffee order while the barista was looking directly at me but was not listening yet.
Didn’t have exact change.
Someone hit me with his umbrella.
Someone sat on me on the train.
Entered the bathroom as someone was leaving.
Made eye contact with my reflection.
Left the bathroom as someone was entering.
Forgot the word “hi.”
Took twenty minutes to reply to an e-mail.
Sneezed.
Refilled my water bottle in the spacious office kitchen while someone else made tea in a very separate area.
The tea-maker spilled tea on my shoe.
Took twenty seconds to reply to a text.
Reminded my boss that we had a meeting.
Got interrupted in the meeting.
Couldn’t answer an e-mail right away because I was in the meeting.
Someone knocked my phone out of my hand in the elevator.
Didn’t know where a street was when an older man asked for directions.
Browsed an aisle at a store while wearing a backpack.
Was early to my date.
Wasn’t the hostess when a family of four was looking for a table for dinner.
Couldn’t split queso because I’m lactose intolerant and then ended up splitting the queso anyway.
Hadn’t heard that podcast or read that book or seen any of those tweets or that movie.
Didn’t know who that actor was. Or that one.
Never learned German.
Couldn’t figure out where the bathroom was.
Didn’t want another drink.
Forgot the word “bye.”
Had to wake up my cat to get into bed.
Wrote this.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Antarctica’s Ice, the One War That the Human Species Can’t Lose

Sign up for Bill McKibben ’ s new Climate Crisis newsletter and get weekly updates from inside the climate movement .
On the final day of my expedition to Antarctica last year , ten of us set out on a Zodiac to tour dozens of icebergs in nature ’ s wondrous ocean museum .
The frozen sculptures glistened in exquisite hues of blue and cyan ; iceberg colors vary by the density of air bubbles .
Each was formed after snapping off an ancient glacier .
The iceberg that sank the Titanic in the Atlantic , in 1912 , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or a smaller piece of floating ice ; it melted within a couple of years .
The ones we saw around Antarctica were massive .
Occasionally , we spotted blubbery elephant seals ( which can weigh more than four tons ) napping on icebergs , or Adélie penguins ( so named by a French explorer , for his wife ) leaping among them , or a Humpback whale ’ s blow unnervingly nearby .
As we headed back to the ship , the naturalist steering the Zodiac suddenly turned off the motor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Antarctica is usually a powerfully silent continent except for the gusting winds or the lapping waves on its coastline .
He put his finger up , signalling to wait for it .
We sat motionless .
A thundering crack then ripped through the air , echoing across the water until it felt like it was going off inside my head .
We watched a towering slice of the continent break off and crash into the Southern Ocean .
It felt cataclysmic .
For almost a half century , I ’ ve covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continents , many for years on end .
I ’ ve always been an outside observer watching as others killed each other .
I lamented the loss of human life—and the warring parties ’ self-destructive practices—from an emotional distance .
In Antarctica , I saw war through a different prism .
And I was the enemy .
“ Humans will be but a blip in the span of Earth ’ s history , ” Wayne Ranney , a naturalist and geologist on the expedition , told me .
“ The only question is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , the temperature in Antarctica hit almost seventy degrees—the hottest in recorded history .
It wasn ’ t a one-day fluke .
Famed for its snowscapes , the Earth ’ s coldest , wildest , windiest , highest , and most mysterious continent has been experiencing a heat wave .
A few days earlier , an Antarctic weather station recorded temperatures in the mid-sixties .
It was colder in Washington , D.C. , where I live .
Images of northern Antarctica captured vast swaths of barren brown terrain devoid of ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snow .
The problem is not whether a new record was set , “ it ’ s the longer-term trend that makes those records more likely to happen more often , ” John Nielsen-Gammon , the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A .
& M. University , told me this week .
“ It ’ s sort of like a forest where trees are constantly growing and trees are dying , but if they start dying faster than they can grow back , then you eventually lose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same thing applies to glaciers .
Glaciers flow out to the ocean and break off , but if they break off faster then the glacier retreats and you lose ice—and then the sea level goes up around the world.
” The iceberg that I watched break off from Antarctica was part of a process called calving .
It ’ s normal and a necessary step in nature ’ s cycle , except that it ’ s now happening a lot faster and in larger chunks—with existential stakes .
The ice in Antarctica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did forty years ago , Eric Rignot , an Earth scientist at the University of California , Irvine , and a co-author of a major study of the continent ’ s ice health , told me .
This month , an iceberg measuring more than a hundred square miles—the size of the Mediterranean island of Malta , or twice the size of Washington , D.C.—broke off the Pine Island Glacier ( lovingly known as PIG , for short ) in West Antarctica .
It then broke up into smaller “ pig-lets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which tracked them by satellite .
The largest piglet was almost forty square miles .
The frozen continent is divided into West Antarctica and East Antarctica .
( The South Pole is in East Antarctica . )
Most of the melting and much of the big calving has happened in the West and along its eight hundred-mile peninsula .
But , in September , an iceberg measuring more than six hundred square miles—or twenty-seven times the size of Manhattan—calved off the Amery Ice Shelf , in East Antarctica .
Calving has accelerated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon-to-be bergs are being tracked as their crevices and cracks become visible from space .
One is from PIG in the West , the other is forming off the Brunt Ice Shelf in the East .
The world ’ s largest iceberg—a colossus measuring more than two thousand square miles , or about the size of Delaware—broke off West Antarctica , in 2017 .
It was so big that maps of the continent had to be redrawn .
It ’ s now slowly making its way around the Antarctic Peninsula , headed toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ iceberg alley.
” As icebergs move into warmer water , they begin to melt—and thus sea levels rise .
The amount of ice on Earth was pivotal in the creation of human civilization ten thousand years ago , a fact that paleo-climatologists only discovered in the late twentieth century .
Scientists now say that ice is the key to peace among civilizations for millennia to come , too .
“ The stability and size and mass of Antarctica is not a bad proxy for how violent the world could become , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stable climate , ” Spencer Glendon , a senior fellow at the Woods Hole Research Center , explained to me .
“ For the first hundred and ninety thousand years that they were on the planet , humans moved from place to place to find temperate weather , as ice and deserts shifted and temperatures moved in wild swings .
About 10,000 B.C.
, the climate stabilized .
When it stabilized , the nice places stayed nice .
A stable climate helped humans stop being nomads .
And that ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space to create humankind ’ s first civilizations .
In physics terms , the climate stabilized because there was just the right percentage of ice on the planet , Glendon explained .
Ice reflects , so sunlight bounces off it back into space and doesn ’ t overheat Earth or its inhabitants .
That ’ s now changing , as Antarctica ( and Greenland ) shrink .
For the past ten thousand years or so , glaciers shrank in summer and grew in winter , but they had a mean or average size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Now , all the glaciers are receding .
And that ’ s because it ’ s warmer , so they shrink more in the summer and expand less in the winter—and there ’ s less and less ice.
” At least eighty per cent of the planet ’ s fresh water is also contained in Antarctica ’ s ice .
Icebergs that melt help replenish supplies .
Again , the issue is balance .
If Antarctica were to completely melt , the oceans would rise around the world by up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event that would reconfigure the globe ’ s geography .
The might and majesty of Antarctica—in its huge spiny peaks and frigidly uninhabitable plateaus—makes that prospect seem impossible .
In winter , the temperature has reached as low as a hundred and forty-eight degrees below zero Fahrenheit .
Yet the process has begun .
In 2018 , a survey published in Nature reported that Antarctica lost more than three trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2017 .
That ’ s enough to fill Lake Erie twelve times over , according to Earther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in West Antarctica is now unstable due to melting over the same period , a second report , by scientists at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling in Britain , concluded last year .
New snowfall can no longer compensate for the losses .

Sign up for Bill McKibben’s new Climate Crisis newsletter and get weekly updates from inside the climate movement.
On the final day of my expedition to Antarctica last year, ten of us set out on a Zodiac to tour dozens of icebergs in nature’s wondrous ocean museum. The frozen sculptures glistened in exquisite hues of blue and cyan; iceberg colors vary by the density of air bubbles. Each was formed after snapping off an ancient glacier. The iceberg that sank the Titanic in the Atlantic, in 1912, was considered a mere “bergy bit,” or a smaller piece of floating ice; it melted within a couple of years. The ones we saw around Antarctica were massive. Occasionally, we spotted blubbery elephant seals (which can weigh more than four tons) napping on icebergs, or Adélie penguins (so named by a French explorer, for his wife) leaping among them, or a Humpback whale’s blow unnervingly nearby. As we headed back to the ship, the naturalist steering the Zodiac suddenly turned off the motor. “Listen,” he said. Antarctica is usually a powerfully silent continent except for the gusting winds or the lapping waves on its coastline. He put his finger up, signalling to wait for it. We sat motionless. A thundering crack then ripped through the air, echoing across the water until it felt like it was going off inside my head. We watched a towering slice of the continent break off and crash into the Southern Ocean. It felt cataclysmic.
For almost a half century, I’ve covered wars, revolutions and uprisings on four continents, many for years on end. I’ve always been an outside observer watching as others killed each other. I lamented the loss of human life—and the warring parties’ self-destructive practices—from an emotional distance. In Antarctica, I saw war through a different prism. And I was the enemy. “Humans will be but a blip in the span of Earth’s history,” Wayne Ranney, a naturalist and geologist on the expedition, told me. “The only question is how long the blip will be.”
Last week, the temperature in Antarctica hit almost seventy degrees—the hottest in recorded history. It wasn’t a one-day fluke. Famed for its snowscapes, the Earth’s coldest, wildest, windiest, highest, and most mysterious continent has been experiencing a heat wave. A few days earlier, an Antarctic weather station recorded temperatures in the mid-sixties. It was colder in Washington, D.C., where I live. Images of northern Antarctica captured vast swaths of barren brown terrain devoid of ice and with only small puddle-like patches of snow.
The problem is not whether a new record was set, “it’s the longer-term trend that makes those records more likely to happen more often,” John Nielsen-Gammon, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A. & M. University, told me this week. “It’s sort of like a forest where trees are constantly growing and trees are dying, but if they start dying faster than they can grow back, then you eventually lose the forest,” he said. “The same thing applies to glaciers. Glaciers flow out to the ocean and break off, but if they break off faster then the glacier retreats and you lose ice—and then the sea level goes up around the world.”
The iceberg that I watched break off from Antarctica was part of a process called calving. It’s normal and a necessary step in nature’s cycle, except that it’s now happening a lot faster and in larger chunks—with existential stakes. The ice in Antarctica is now melting six times faster than it did forty years ago, Eric Rignot, an Earth scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and a co-author of a major study of the continent’s ice health, told me.
This month, an iceberg measuring more than a hundred square miles—the size of the Mediterranean island of Malta, or twice the size of Washington, D.C.—broke off the Pine Island Glacier (lovingly known as PIG, for short) in West Antarctica. It then broke up into smaller “pig-lets,” according to the European Space Agency, which tracked them by satellite. The largest piglet was almost forty square miles.
The frozen continent is divided into West Antarctica and East Antarctica. (The South Pole is in East Antarctica.) Most of the melting and much of the big calving has happened in the West and along its eight hundred-mile peninsula. But, in September, an iceberg measuring more than six hundred square miles—or twenty-seven times the size of Manhattan—calved off the Amery Ice Shelf, in East Antarctica. Calving has accelerated in startling style. Two other huge soon-to-be bergs are being tracked as their crevices and cracks become visible from space. One is from PIG in the West, the other is forming off the Brunt Ice Shelf in the East.
The world’s largest iceberg—a colossus measuring more than two thousand square miles, or about the size of Delaware—broke off West Antarctica, in 2017. It was so big that maps of the continent had to be redrawn. It’s now slowly making its way around the Antarctic Peninsula, headed toward the Atlantic Ocean on a path known as “iceberg alley.”
The amount of ice on Earth was pivotal in the creation of human civilization ten thousand years ago, a fact that paleo-climatologists only discovered in the late twentieth century. Scientists now say that ice is the key to peace among civilizations for millennia to come, too. “The stability and size and mass of Antarctica is not a bad proxy for how violent the world could become, in that human civilization was built on a stable climate,” Spencer Glendon, a senior fellow at the Woods Hole Research Center, explained to me. “For the first hundred and ninety thousand years that they were on the planet, humans moved from place to place to find temperate weather, as ice and deserts shifted and temperatures moved in wild swings. About 10,000 B.C., the climate stabilized. When it stabilized, the nice places stayed nice. A stable climate helped humans stop being nomads. And that’s why people settled,” creating time and space to create humankind’s first civilizations.
In physics terms, the climate stabilized because there was just the right percentage of ice on the planet, Glendon explained. Ice reflects, so sunlight bounces off it back into space and doesn’t overheat Earth or its inhabitants. That’s now changing, as Antarctica (and Greenland) shrink. For the past ten thousand years or so, glaciers shrank in summer and grew in winter, but they had a mean or average size that was stable over time, he said. “Now, all the glaciers are receding. And that’s because it’s warmer, so they shrink more in the summer and expand less in the winter—and there’s less and less ice.”
At least eighty per cent of the planet’s fresh water is also contained in Antarctica’s ice. Icebergs that melt help replenish supplies. Again, the issue is balance. If Antarctica were to completely melt, the oceans would rise around the world by up to two hundred feet, an apocalyptic event that would reconfigure the globe’s geography. The might and majesty of Antarctica—in its huge spiny peaks and frigidly uninhabitable plateaus—makes that prospect seem impossible. In winter, the temperature has reached as low as a hundred and forty-eight degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Yet the process has begun. In 2018, a survey published in Nature reported that Antarctica lost more than three trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2017. That’s enough to fill Lake Erie twelve times over, according to Earther. A quarter of the glacier ice in West Antarctica is now unstable due to melting over the same period, a second report, by scientists at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling in Britain, concluded last year. New snowfall can no longer compensate for the losses.
Glaciers, and their iceberg offspring, take millennia to produce. The iceberg that sunk the Titanic probably originated with a snowfall in Greenland, three thousand years ago, possibly around the time that King Tutankhamun reigned in ancient Egypt, according to one account. It probably broke off Greenland in 1910 or 1911 and started floating toward the Atlantic. By the time it was struck by the Titanic, in 1912, killing more than fifteen hundred passengers and crew, it was already melting.
“By 2035, the point of no return could be crossed,” Matthew Burrows, a former director at the National Intelligence Council, wrote in a report last year about global risks over the next fifteen years. That’s the point after which stopping the Earth’s temperature from rising by two degrees Celsius—or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit—will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, in turn triggering “a dangerous medley of global disasters.”
And that, in turn, goes back to ice and its role in fostering human civilization. “What’s coming—or is happening—is the end of the earth’s stability,” Glendon told me. “In human terms, that means a return to migration, but in a population of not just a few million, but several billion.”
Before I went to Antarctica, I checked in with Donald Perovich, a geophysicist at Dartmouth who tracks sea ice. We got to talking about wars. “You can argue that in all wars, there are winners and losers. Afterward, societies go on. There’s an opportunity to recover and move forward. If you approach climate change as a war, there are some really severe consequences across the board,” he told me. “This,” he added, “is the one war we can’t lose.”
This piece has been updated for clarity about sea-level rise.


newyorker--2020-02-20--A Very Bad Night for Michael Bloomberg in a Chaotic Democratic Debate

Early in Wednesday ’ s Democratic debate , in Nevada , three days before that state ’ s caucuses , Lester Holt , one of the NBC moderators , turned to Senator Bernie Sanders and asked him if he was “ polarizing.
” Sanders , who had already raged against billionaires—one of whom , Michael Bloomberg , was on the debate stage for the first time—replied in a tone of stubborn defiance .
“ If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working class is ‘ polarizing , ’ I think you got the wrong word.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right word was .
Polarizing might not be exactly the right word to describe the debate as a whole , either , since it implies two counterbalancing ends—and the debate was pure entropy .
It was contentious , but the divisions were not clean .
Other words come to mind , too , including hostility , outrage , pettiness , and even contempt .
Bloomberg called Sanders unelectable and said that his policies were “ ridiculous ” and akin to “ Communism.
” ( Sanders called that a “ cheap shot.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notably , Senator Elizabeth Warren attacked him , and he helped her out by offering mangled or even arrogant responses to reasonable questions about his record and character .
In the first chance she had to speak , Warren called Bloomberg “ a billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians.
’ ” Those epithets appear in a 1990 collection called “ The Portable Bloomberg : The Wit & Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg , ” and appear to refer to Sarah Ferguson , the Duchess of York , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have chosen them because so many of the other quotes would not work on broadcast television .
( The pamphlet , which a colleague assembled for Bloomberg ’ s forty-eighth birthday , has been quoted for years , but the Washington Post only put the full edition online this weekend .
Bloomberg ’ s spokespeople told the paper that it was a “ gag gift ” and that not everything was accurate , although the pamphlet ’ s introduction indicates otherwise , and the Post assembled a wealth of reporting to back up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the Bloomberg of that era is quoted as saying that his company ’ s business-information terminal “ will do everything , including give you a blowjob .
I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.
” Insofar as “ you girls ” refers to the women who worked for him , a number of them brought lawsuits in which a hostile work environment was an element .
There are no allegations that he sexually pursued women who worked for him ; instead , according to the suits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he allegedly spoke about women sexually and excoriated them for having the effrontery to get pregnant when he wanted them working ( “ What the hell did you do a thing like that for ?
” ) , or for seeking quality child care ( “ It ’ s a f -- -- -- baby !
.
.
.
All you need is some black who doesn ’ t even have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building ” —a quote that also implicates his views on race ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said to have told a pregnant employee to “ Kill it ” or , at least , asked if she would do so , accompanied by a string of self-pitying complaints about women having babies .
( Bloomberg has denied saying those words ; a suit brought by that employee was settled . )
Hallie Jackson , one of the NBC moderators , asked Bloomberg about a quote that he allegedly addressed to a woman who worked for him : “ I would do you in a second.
” Bloomberg should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression , perhaps , of contrition or personal growth , or a reflection on an earlier , uglier era in New York ’ s business culture .
Instead , he admonished Jackson to give him his full time , then said that he didn ’ t tolerate “ the kind of behavior # MeToo has exposed , ” and bragged about the opportunities women had at “ my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there.
” He quoted a survey about workplace satisfaction and pronounced his employees “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
” He made it worse by saying , of the nondisclosure agreements that some women had signed , that “ none of them accuse me of doing anything , other than maybe they didn ’ t like a joke I told.
” He has already spent more than three hundred million dollars on the campaign—for all that money , was he unable to find anyone to advise him on how to address his own failings ?
Bloomberg ’ s responses to questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor were just as bad .
He presented police officers stopping New Yorkers—almost seven hundred thousand in one year , disproportionately African-American and Latino young men and boys—and searching them with little cause as a sensible way to stop murders , because his “ first responsibility was to give people the right to live.
” He then said that , when he realized that the program was “ out of control , ” he cut it back .
This is simply false ; it was protests from the public and lawsuits , notably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberties Union , that curtailed the program .
( Joe Biden jumped in to say that Barack Obama had swooped in to solve stop-and-frisk , which is also not correct . )
Bloomberg apologized for how it had ended up but didn ’ t disavow the program itself .
More than that , he came across as unwilling even to listen to the argument that racism might have been a part of the story .
Surprisingly , in the exchange about crime prevention , he failed to highlight his activism on gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a true leader .
Warren was part of the attack on Bloomberg here , but all the candidates were .
Sanders was effective in showing real rage about stop-and-frisk and also about Bloomberg ’ s past opposition to raising the minimum wage .
In a sense , Bloomberg ’ s presence helped Sanders to make the case—one he clearly deeply believes in—that the fights against racism and for the working class are intertwined .
To that he added the issues of universal health care and climate change ; Sanders ’ s great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make the connections seem organic , because they are all rooted in his view of the world .
There were moments when he was dismissive of non-billionaires , too , telling Pete Buttigieg , who had brought up the Nevada Culinary Workers Union ’ s concerns that Sanders ’ s Medicare for All plan would mean the end of their own health-insurance program , that he had “ more union support than you have ever dreamed of !
” Sanders ’ s attempt to address concerns about his heart attack by noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , was not entirely reassuring .
Nor was his suggestion that some of the social-media virulence attributed to his followers might be better blamed on the Russians .
But , on the whole , Sanders had the most coherent debate performance of the night .
Others had mixed showings .
Warren came alive when she took on Bloomberg , but she also belittled Sanders , Buttigieg , and Senator Amy Klobuchar—all three in the space of about thirty seconds—while never really making a case for herself .
Buttigieg had strong moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s failure , during an interview , to come up with the name of the President of Mexico .
“ Are you trying to say that I ’ m dumb ?
Or are you mocking me here , Pete ?
” Klobuchar replied .
Later , she told him , “ I wish everyone was as perfect as you.
” It was the mockery of all against all .
Klobuchar did make a case for her moderate policies , and demonstrated her determination and her comic instincts .
When Bloomberg made an off-key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returns had been delayed because they were too complicated for TurboTax , she said that she ’ d looked at her husband in the audience as a reminder that , when they filed , “ We probably could go to TurboTax.
” And when Warren claimed ( falsely , as it happens ) that Klobuchar ’ s health plan was only two paragraphs on her Web site and was “ like a Post-it Note , ” she replied , “ I must say , I take personal offense , since Post-it Notes were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moments when he connected than he had in other debates .
Buttigieg was often sharp .
But all got a bit battered .
It is the voters who need to clarify the situation now—this Saturday , in caucuses in Nevada , then , a week later , in the South Carolina primary , and on to Super Tuesday , on March 3rd .
It ’ s also possible that , with such a divided field , Bloomberg ’ s money will sustain him well beyond Super Tuesday .
At one point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immoral distribution of wealth and income ” exemplified by the size of Bloomberg ’ s fortune , at a time when people were “ sleeping out on the streets , ” Bloomberg responded with a strange insouciance .
“ I can ’ t speak for all billionaires , ” he said .
“ All I know is I ’ ve been very lucky , made a lot of money , and I ’ m giving it all away to make this country better .
And a good chunk of it goes to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done that , to the benefit of many House candidates , for example .
But it was an odd way to sum up a confrontation about inequality .
It was as if he was reminding Democrats of what he thought he ’ d bought .

Early in Wednesday’s Democratic debate, in Nevada, three days before that state’s caucuses, Lester Holt, one of the NBC moderators, turned to Senator Bernie Sanders and asked him if he was “polarizing.” Sanders, who had already raged against billionaires—one of whom, Michael Bloomberg, was on the debate stage for the first time—replied in a tone of stubborn defiance. “If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working class is ‘polarizing,’ I think you got the wrong word.” He didn’t say what the right word was. Polarizing might not be exactly the right word to describe the debate as a whole, either, since it implies two counterbalancing ends—and the debate was pure entropy. It was contentious, but the divisions were not clean. Other words come to mind, too, including hostility, outrage, pettiness, and even contempt.
Bloomberg called Sanders unelectable and said that his policies were “ridiculous” and akin to “Communism.” (Sanders called that a “cheap shot.”) But Bloomberg was the vulnerable one. Notably, Senator Elizabeth Warren attacked him, and he helped her out by offering mangled or even arrogant responses to reasonable questions about his record and character. In the first chance she had to speak, Warren called Bloomberg “a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ ” Those epithets appear in a 1990 collection called “The Portable Bloomberg: The Wit & Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg,” and appear to refer to Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, and Princess Anne, respectively. Warren may have chosen them because so many of the other quotes would not work on broadcast television. (The pamphlet, which a colleague assembled for Bloomberg’s forty-eighth birthday, has been quoted for years, but the Washington Post only put the full edition online this weekend. Bloomberg’s spokespeople told the paper that it was a “gag gift” and that not everything was accurate, although the pamphlet’s introduction indicates otherwise, and the Post assembled a wealth of reporting to back up many of the claims.) For example, the Bloomberg of that era is quoted as saying that his company’s business-information terminal “will do everything, including give you a blowjob. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.” Insofar as “you girls” refers to the women who worked for him, a number of them brought lawsuits in which a hostile work environment was an element. There are no allegations that he sexually pursued women who worked for him; instead, according to the suits and the Post’s reporting, he allegedly spoke about women sexually and excoriated them for having the effrontery to get pregnant when he wanted them working (“What the hell did you do a thing like that for?”), or for seeking quality child care (“It’s a f------ baby! . . . All you need is some black who doesn’t even have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building”—a quote that also implicates his views on race). In one notorious incident, he is said to have told a pregnant employee to “Kill it” or, at least, asked if she would do so, accompanied by a string of self-pitying complaints about women having babies. (Bloomberg has denied saying those words; a suit brought by that employee was settled.) Hallie Jackson, one of the NBC moderators, asked Bloomberg about a quote that he allegedly addressed to a woman who worked for him: “I would do you in a second.”
Bloomberg should have been ready for that one, with some expression, perhaps, of contrition or personal growth, or a reflection on an earlier, uglier era in New York’s business culture. Instead, he admonished Jackson to give him his full time, then said that he didn’t tolerate “the kind of behavior #MeToo has exposed,” and bragged about the opportunities women had at “my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there.” He quoted a survey about workplace satisfaction and pronounced his employees “happy.” Warren summed up his response as “I’ve been nice to some women.” He made it worse by saying, of the nondisclosure agreements that some women had signed, that “none of them accuse me of doing anything, other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told.” He has already spent more than three hundred million dollars on the campaign—for all that money, was he unable to find anyone to advise him on how to address his own failings?
Bloomberg’s responses to questions about the stop-and-frisk program that he oversaw as mayor were just as bad. He presented police officers stopping New Yorkers—almost seven hundred thousand in one year, disproportionately African-American and Latino young men and boys—and searching them with little cause as a sensible way to stop murders, because his “first responsibility was to give people the right to live.” He then said that, when he realized that the program was “out of control,” he cut it back. This is simply false; it was protests from the public and lawsuits, notably one brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, that curtailed the program. (Joe Biden jumped in to say that Barack Obama had swooped in to solve stop-and-frisk, which is also not correct.) Bloomberg apologized for how it had ended up but didn’t disavow the program itself. More than that, he came across as unwilling even to listen to the argument that racism might have been a part of the story. Surprisingly, in the exchange about crime prevention, he failed to highlight his activism on gun control, an area in which he has been a true leader.
Warren was part of the attack on Bloomberg here, but all the candidates were. Sanders was effective in showing real rage about stop-and-frisk and also about Bloomberg’s past opposition to raising the minimum wage. In a sense, Bloomberg’s presence helped Sanders to make the case—one he clearly deeply believes in—that the fights against racism and for the working class are intertwined. To that he added the issues of universal health care and climate change; Sanders’s great strength as a campaigner is that he can make the connections seem organic, because they are all rooted in his view of the world. There were moments when he was dismissive of non-billionaires, too, telling Pete Buttigieg, who had brought up the Nevada Culinary Workers Union’s concerns that Sanders’s Medicare for All plan would mean the end of their own health-insurance program, that he had “more union support than you have ever dreamed of!” Sanders’s attempt to address concerns about his heart attack by noting that Bloomberg had heart stents put in, too, was not entirely reassuring. Nor was his suggestion that some of the social-media virulence attributed to his followers might be better blamed on the Russians. But, on the whole, Sanders had the most coherent debate performance of the night.
Others had mixed showings. Warren came alive when she took on Bloomberg, but she also belittled Sanders, Buttigieg, and Senator Amy Klobuchar—all three in the space of about thirty seconds—while never really making a case for herself. Buttigieg had strong moments, but also harped on Klobuchar’s failure, during an interview, to come up with the name of the President of Mexico. “Are you trying to say that I’m dumb? Or are you mocking me here, Pete?” Klobuchar replied. Later, she told him, “I wish everyone was as perfect as you.” It was the mockery of all against all. Klobuchar did make a case for her moderate policies, and demonstrated her determination and her comic instincts. When Bloomberg made an off-key pronouncement that the release of his tax returns had been delayed because they were too complicated for TurboTax, she said that she’d looked at her husband in the audience as a reminder that, when they filed, “We probably could go to TurboTax.” And when Warren claimed (falsely, as it happens) that Klobuchar’s health plan was only two paragraphs on her Web site and was “like a Post-it Note,” she replied, “I must say, I take personal offense, since Post-it Notes were invented in my state.” Biden had more moments when he connected than he had in other debates. Buttigieg was often sharp. But all got a bit battered. It is the voters who need to clarify the situation now—this Saturday, in caucuses in Nevada, then, a week later, in the South Carolina primary, and on to Super Tuesday, on March 3rd.
It’s also possible that, with such a divided field, Bloomberg’s money will sustain him well beyond Super Tuesday. At one point, after Sanders criticized the “grotesque and immoral distribution of wealth and income” exemplified by the size of Bloomberg’s fortune, at a time when people were “sleeping out on the streets,” Bloomberg responded with a strange insouciance. “I can’t speak for all billionaires,” he said. “All I know is I’ve been very lucky, made a lot of money, and I’m giving it all away to make this country better. And a good chunk of it goes to the Democratic Party as well.” He has done that, to the benefit of many House candidates, for example. But it was an odd way to sum up a confrontation about inequality. It was as if he was reminding Democrats of what he thought he’d bought.


newyorker--2020-02-20--The Case for Open Borders

The Case for Open Borders

In the past decade , the government of Australia spent more than fifteen million dollars on an advertising campaign designed to deter prospective migrants .
The multimedia effort , which has been lauded by President Trump , featured bold , red text— “ NO WAY : YOU WILL NOT MAKE AUSTRALIA HOME ” —over images of dark , choppy seas .
The Department of Homeland Security has distributed similar flyers at migrant shelters in Mexico , near the border : “ The next time you try to cross the border without documents , you could end up a victim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada has mounted billboards in Hungary to deter Roma asylum seekers ; Germany has sponsored posters on the sides of Kabul buses ; Norway has purchased Facebook ads targeted at young men from Afghanistan , Ethiopia , and Eritrea whose profiles indicate interest in “ travelling ” or “ Europe.
” Activists and observers have criticized the hostile tone of these ad campaigns .
Still , the ads ’ underlying premise—that governments have a right to control entry into their countries—seems beyond dispute .
Even immigration activists implicitly accept that it must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Immigration and Customs Enforcement , for example , speaks to the question of how American borders are policed , not to whether they ought to be policed in the first place .
In a new graphic-nonfiction book , “ Open Borders : The Science and Ethics of Immigration , ” Bryan Caplan , a libertarian economist at George Mason University , makes the radical pro-immigration argument that others don ’ t .
In his view , immigration should be essentially unlimited .
He envisions a future in which Democrats and Republicans vie to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border party , ” each calling for nearly unrestricted immigration .
The difference between Caplan ’ s world and our own is that Caplan presents immigrants not as threats—to low-skilled workers , to social services , to public culture—but as generators of wealth .
Citing the work of the development economist Michael Clemens , Caplan claims that global freedom of movement would increase the gross world product by between fifty and a hundred and fifty per cent .
The basic principle of his claim is that workers in poor countries are underutilized .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Haiti ?
” Caplan asks . )
If people could travel as freely as commodities and capital do , they could produce “ vastly more stuff , ” insuring that “ almost everyone ends up better off.
” Restrictions on immigration , Caplan writes , are the equivalent of leaving “ trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.
” ( He borrows that phrase from Clemens ; Zach Weinersmith , the book ’ s illustrator , draws a cartoon Caplan and Clemens making angels in snowdrifts of cash . )
Opening the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , Caplan explains .
Countries could still issue passports and maintain territorial notions of belonging .
But immigrants—perhaps after passing some sort of criminal background check—would be automatically accepted at all standard ports of entry .
Governments would relinquish their exclusionary authority , so that anyone , regardless of citizenship , could “ accept a job offer from a willing employer or rent an apartment from a willing landlord.
” In one illustration , a cartoon Caplan serves a trillion-dollar blueberry pie ; its slices are distributed to landlords with apartments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , and mothers reëntering the workforce thanks to lower child-care costs .
Caplan concedes that , in countries like the U.S. , wages could decrease for some native workers .
But he argues that the influx of new consumers would stimulate the economy , and that many members of America ’ s working class would end up “ managing and training new arrivals , not competing with them !
” Big businesses are notably absent from Caplan ’ s list of beneficiaries , although they would profit from an expanded labor pool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Charles Koch has come out in favor of open borders .
( In 2015 , Bernie Sanders characterized the idea as “ a Koch brothers proposal ” designed to “ bring in people who will work for two or three dollars an hour.
” ) What about poorer countries , with low returns on labor , from which immigrants would flow ?
Presumably , an open-border policy would lead to a mass exodus .
And yet an illustrated version of Caplan , working as a Western Union teller , reassures these countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , monumental remittances .
Brain drain wouldn ’ t be an issue , since the total liberalization of movement would allow everyone—not just the highly skilled—to emigrate .
Caplan writes that a “ ghost town , ” in which a dwindling labor pool keeps wages high , is preferable to the “ zombie ” towns , which trap their residents in moribund economies , that are created by the current system .
( A sign on a zombie-infested Main Street reads “ BRAINS 50 % OFF !
” ) Caplan imagines a debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that free immigration and a welfare state couldn ’ t coëxist .
Caplan , pictured alongside Friedman in a maternity ward , explains why the fact that some immigrants end up depending on social services is a weak argument : some native-born babies grow up to depend on social services , too , and yet no one argues that we ought to restrict reproduction .
Anyway , Caplan tells Friedman , “ when we crunch the numbers , ” immigrants represent a net fiscal benefit to the U.S. government .
According to data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the average new arrival generates two hundred and fifty-nine thousand dollars in tax revenue .
Data also shows that American-born citizens tend to impose a larger fiscal burden , and are more likely to commit crimes , than immigrants .
In the book ’ s fantasia , Friedman , who died in 2006 , doesn ’ t contest Caplan ’ s assertion that “ most immigrants pull their own weight—and then some.
” Caplan ’ s case isn ’ t entirely about economics : he also makes a moral appeal .
Consider the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who needs food and is prepared to purchase it legally .
On his way to the market , he is turned away by an armed guard .
If Marvin subsequently dies of starvation , Caplan asks , is the guard guilty of murder ?
The philosopher Michael Huemer , who first introduced this hypothetical , in 2012 , concluded that the answer was yes .
He writes , “ If a person is starving , and you refuse to give him food , then you allow him to starve , but if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his obtaining food from someone else , then you do not merely allow him to starve ; you starve him.
” Caplan doesn ’ t go that far , but he does argue that the guard is wrong to prevent Marvin from feeding himself .
As a libertarian , Caplan generally seeks to avoid distinguishing between citizens of different countries .
Instead , he condemns the “ global apartheid ” that borders perpetuate .
Exclusion on the basis of one ’ s country of birth , he maintains , is no less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender , race , or religion .
We are right to value equality of opportunity—but , if it ’ s valued at home , then it should also be valued on a global scale , where inequality is much starker .
Many people see inequality within a country as morally urgent in a way that they do not consider inequality across borders to be .
The philosopher Christopher Wellman offers an explanation for this attitude : he points out that , although we might quickly condemn parents who pay for their sons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could forgive cash-strapped parents who pay no one ’ s tuition .
The latter situation is worse , strictly speaking , but at least it feels unavoidable .
We might conclude that global inequality , though lamentable , is the result of vast historical forces that we can ’ t be expected to change .
It ’ s just the way the world is .
In Caplan ’ s estimation , though , global inequality isn ’ t inevitable , and immigration isn ’ t a zero-sum game .
Opening the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of revenue-generating humanitarianism—a form of laissez-faire global distributive justice , on the order of seventy-five trillion dollars a year .
Letting in Starving Marvin isn ’ t just “ the decent thing to do ” but also “ the smart thing to do.
” Turning him away would be wrong both morally and financially .
We aren ’ t the impoverished parents who can ’ t afford to send anybody to college .
We ’ re the rich parents who choose to send some kids but not others .

In the past decade, the government of Australia spent more than fifteen million dollars on an advertising campaign designed to deter prospective migrants. The multimedia effort, which has been lauded by President Trump, featured bold, red text—“NO WAY: YOU WILL NOT MAKE AUSTRALIA HOME”—over images of dark, choppy seas. The Department of Homeland Security has distributed similar flyers at migrant shelters in Mexico, near the border: “The next time you try to cross the border without documents, you could end up a victim of the desert,” they warn. Canada has mounted billboards in Hungary to deter Roma asylum seekers; Germany has sponsored posters on the sides of Kabul buses; Norway has purchased Facebook ads targeted at young men from Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea whose profiles indicate interest in “travelling” or “Europe.”
Activists and observers have criticized the hostile tone of these ad campaigns. Still, the ads’ underlying premise—that governments have a right to control entry into their countries—seems beyond dispute. Even immigration activists implicitly accept that it must be controlled: the movement to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for example, speaks to the question of how American borders are policed, not to whether they ought to be policed in the first place. In a new graphic-nonfiction book, “Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration,” Bryan Caplan, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, makes the radical pro-immigration argument that others don’t. In his view, immigration should be essentially unlimited. He envisions a future in which Democrats and Republicans vie to become the country’s “open border party,” each calling for nearly unrestricted immigration.
The difference between Caplan’s world and our own is that Caplan presents immigrants not as threats—to low-skilled workers, to social services, to public culture—but as generators of wealth. Citing the work of the development economist Michael Clemens, Caplan claims that global freedom of movement would increase the gross world product by between fifty and a hundred and fifty per cent. The basic principle of his claim is that workers in poor countries are underutilized. (“How productive would you be in Haiti?” Caplan asks.) If people could travel as freely as commodities and capital do, they could produce “vastly more stuff,” insuring that “almost everyone ends up better off.” Restrictions on immigration, Caplan writes, are the equivalent of leaving “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.” (He borrows that phrase from Clemens; Zach Weinersmith, the book’s illustrator, draws a cartoon Caplan and Clemens making angels in snowdrifts of cash.)
Opening the world’s borders wouldn’t mean abolishing them, Caplan explains. Countries could still issue passports and maintain territorial notions of belonging. But immigrants—perhaps after passing some sort of criminal background check—would be automatically accepted at all standard ports of entry. Governments would relinquish their exclusionary authority, so that anyone, regardless of citizenship, could “accept a job offer from a willing employer or rent an apartment from a willing landlord.” In one illustration, a cartoon Caplan serves a trillion-dollar blueberry pie; its slices are distributed to landlords with apartments to rent, retirees with newly affordable elder care, and mothers reëntering the workforce thanks to lower child-care costs. Caplan concedes that, in countries like the U.S., wages could decrease for some native workers. But he argues that the influx of new consumers would stimulate the economy, and that many members of America’s working class would end up “managing and training new arrivals, not competing with them!” Big businesses are notably absent from Caplan’s list of beneficiaries, although they would profit from an expanded labor pool, too. Partly for this reason, Charles Koch has come out in favor of open borders. (In 2015, Bernie Sanders characterized the idea as “a Koch brothers proposal” designed to “bring in people who will work for two or three dollars an hour.”)
What about poorer countries, with low returns on labor, from which immigrants would flow? Presumably, an open-border policy would lead to a mass exodus. And yet an illustrated version of Caplan, working as a Western Union teller, reassures these countries that they would be rewarded with compensatory, monumental remittances. Brain drain wouldn’t be an issue, since the total liberalization of movement would allow everyone—not just the highly skilled—to emigrate. Caplan writes that a “ghost town,” in which a dwindling labor pool keeps wages high, is preferable to the “zombie” towns, which trap their residents in moribund economies, that are created by the current system. (A sign on a zombie-infested Main Street reads “BRAINS 50% OFF!”)
Caplan imagines a debate with Milton Friedman, who once declared that free immigration and a welfare state couldn’t coëxist. Caplan, pictured alongside Friedman in a maternity ward, explains why the fact that some immigrants end up depending on social services is a weak argument: some native-born babies grow up to depend on social services, too, and yet no one argues that we ought to restrict reproduction. Anyway, Caplan tells Friedman, “when we crunch the numbers,” immigrants represent a net fiscal benefit to the U.S. government. According to data from the National Academy of Sciences, the average new arrival generates two hundred and fifty-nine thousand dollars in tax revenue. Data also shows that American-born citizens tend to impose a larger fiscal burden, and are more likely to commit crimes, than immigrants. In the book’s fantasia, Friedman, who died in 2006, doesn’t contest Caplan’s assertion that “most immigrants pull their own weight—and then some.”
Caplan’s case isn’t entirely about economics: he also makes a moral appeal. Consider the case of “Starving Marvin,” who needs food and is prepared to purchase it legally. On his way to the market, he is turned away by an armed guard. If Marvin subsequently dies of starvation, Caplan asks, is the guard guilty of murder? The philosopher Michael Huemer, who first introduced this hypothetical, in 2012, concluded that the answer was yes. He writes, “If a person is starving, and you refuse to give him food, then you allow him to starve, but if you take the extra step of coercively interfering with his obtaining food from someone else, then you do not merely allow him to starve; you starve him.” Caplan doesn’t go that far, but he does argue that the guard is wrong to prevent Marvin from feeding himself.
As a libertarian, Caplan generally seeks to avoid distinguishing between citizens of different countries. Instead, he condemns the “global apartheid” that borders perpetuate. Exclusion on the basis of one’s country of birth, he maintains, is no less reprehensible than discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, or religion. We are right to value equality of opportunity—but, if it’s valued at home, then it should also be valued on a global scale, where inequality is much starker.
Many people see inequality within a country as morally urgent in a way that they do not consider inequality across borders to be. The philosopher Christopher Wellman offers an explanation for this attitude: he points out that, although we might quickly condemn parents who pay for their sons to attend college but not their daughters, we could forgive cash-strapped parents who pay no one’s tuition. The latter situation is worse, strictly speaking, but at least it feels unavoidable. We might conclude that global inequality, though lamentable, is the result of vast historical forces that we can’t be expected to change. It’s just the way the world is.
In Caplan’s estimation, though, global inequality isn’t inevitable, and immigration isn’t a zero-sum game. Opening the world’s borders would be an act of revenue-generating humanitarianism—a form of laissez-faire global distributive justice, on the order of seventy-five trillion dollars a year. Letting in Starving Marvin isn’t just “the decent thing to do” but also “the smart thing to do.” Turning him away would be wrong both morally and financially. We aren’t the impoverished parents who can’t afford to send anybody to college. We’re the rich parents who choose to send some kids but not others.
The illustrations in “Open Borders” are playful, bright, and irreverent; their simple style evokes Caplan’s relentless optimism. And yet, when they aren’t harmlessly humorous—statistics floating in hot-air balloons; Americans eating “Conspicuous Pecansumption” ice cream—they tend to reduce their subjects to caricature. “Poor countries” are depicted using images of generic slums and anonymous, emaciated brown people; a person who smuggles migrants in the desert is represented as an actual coyote, wearing sunglasses. At times, the images embrace stereotypes in glib ways: a Chinese couple running a restaurant stand in for high-skilled immigrants, and a pickup truck crossing the border is presumed to contain those who are low-skilled. At other times, perhaps intentionally, the figures are dissonantly cartoonish. It’s hard to reckon with a cartoon version of Alan Kurdi, the three-year-old boy who drowned while fleeing Syria, lying face down on the beach. Caplan and Weinersmith may be trying to reach those who looked away from the original photo: elsewhere in the book, Caplan suggests that open borders would make poverty more visible. “Immigration restrictions hide even more poverty than they create,” he writes.
Caplan’s “Open Borders” isn’t the only recent book on the subject of free immigration. In September, the far-right polemicist Michelle Malkin published “Open Borders Inc.: Who’s Funding America’s Destruction?,” an exploration of how “foreign and domestic enemies”—among them George Soros, Silicon Valley billionaires, and assorted “globalists”—are working together, under humanitarian cover, to throw open the nation’s gates. Caplan doesn’t engage with the immigration-as-a-conspiracy crowd, but he does seek to address the concerns of a socially conservative audience. He acknowledges worries about adult immigrants who never achieve full English fluency, but notes that their children surely will; he also suggests that America, a country without an official national language, could impose an English-language entrance test, if it wanted to. He frames cosmopolitanism as a route to cultural superiority—a way of aggregating “the best lifestyles! The best art! The best food!” And he imagines the opening of borders as a strategic move in the clash of civilizations. “Westernization is quietly winning” around the world, he writes, but it “will win faster if people stuck in closed societies can freely vote with their feet.”
Caplan sometimes ventures into territory that liberal readers will find unsettling. He disputes Donald Trump, Jr.,’s provocation about Syrian refugees—“If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful?”—noting that a realistic bowl would be so large as to fatally undermine the metaphor. He also argues that, if Muslims “were evenly distributed throughout the world, they wouldn’t be the dominant culture anywhere,” and suggests that a country might “raise non-Muslim immigration” as a pro-immigration alternative to a Muslim ban. As a concession to conservatives who worry about new arrivals not assimilating culturally or politically, he allows that laws could make immigrants “wait years and years to naturalize, so they have ample time to learn to love our political ideals.” (In an illustration, an immigrant leans despondently against an hourglass.) For any remaining skeptics, Caplan cites Alex Nowrasteh, of the libertarian Cato Institute, who advises a “wall around the welfare state, instead of the country.”
Caplan also points out that increased immigration doesn’t have to go hand in hand with permanent settlement or political representation. Most people migrate for work, he writes, and not for “the subtle satisfaction of voting.” In a recent piece for Foreign Policy, Caplan praised the Gulf states, such as Qatar, whose temporary-worker programs, which don’t offer paths to citizenship, have made them “more open to immigration than almost anywhere else on Earth.” Such programs have attracted migrants—but they have also proved to be fertile ground for human-rights violations, including passport confiscation and physical abuse. Ideas like immigration without representation look one way against the backdrop of “global apartheid” and another in the context of these realities. As in his previous books, such as “The Case Against Education” and “The Myth of the Rational Voter,” Caplan sometimes assumes the lightened burden of the provocateur, pulling out all the stops in an effort to challenge widely held beliefs. By the end of “Open Borders”—when a cartoon narrator pushes the Overton window to the far edge of the page, revealing the sun shining over an open-bordered world—one might wonder how seriously to take his ideas, and how seriously he takes them. His open-borders proposal, of course, is almost certainly political non-starter.
Still, there are reasons not to discount open-border thinking as mere provocation, or to see it as an idea confined solely to libertarianism. Caplan argues that birthright citizenship is a lottery of opportunity—in an accompanying illustration, a gambler at an immigration slot machine hits the jackpot (“U$A”)—and other thinkers agree. Instead of invoking the metaphor of apartheid, the egalitarian political philosopher Joseph Carens suggests that our current system is a contemporary equivalent of feudalism: routine restrictions on mobility compound existing disadvantages, denying the global “peasantry” the resources to escape their position. (Today, one loophole in the system is citizenship by investment: one can become a citizen of Malta, for example, which is part of the European Union, by spending about eight hundred thousand euros on property or other projects there.)
Caplan doesn’t address asylum explicitly, in part because he doesn’t need to: an open-bordered world wouldn’t distinguish between those who are escaping persecution and those who are seeking opportunity. But such a world would likely benefit asylum seekers whose situations diverge from the classic definition of the refugee, laid out by the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention. (Starving Marvin doesn’t flee persecution, which is at the center of the current definition, but his country’s failure to meet his basic needs.) An open-borders system could likewise address the coming displacement of millions, by rising sea levels, droughts, fires, and storms. The Global North, which is responsible for the great majority of greenhouse-gas emissions, might consider the opening of borders a fair exchange for almost two centuries of pollution. Some activists see migration policy as a tool for reparative justice more generally. If today’s migrations can be understood as resulting, in part, from a history of colonialism, then the opening of the world’s borders might be a form of reparations.
Today, as American immigration reformers confront the detention of children and the building of border walls, arguments in favor of open borders might seem frivolous. A 2018 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that only a third of Americans think that legal immigration should be increased; a quarter want it decreased. Caplan notes that the average immigrant to the U.S. holds political views similar to the ones held by the average American; this, he writes, suggests that the United States could open its borders without substantially transforming its political culture. But he also acknowledges that citizens might respond to increased immigration by changing their political outlooks. In one of Weinersmith’s illustrations, a Norwegian woman with long blond hair smiles approvingly as she imagines a portion of her salary being redistributed to a fellow-Norwegian, in a universal-basic-income scheme; she looks displeased, however, when she hears that the program includes non-citizens. (Two-thirds of Norwegians support such programs, but, when non-Norwegians are involved, approval drops to less than half.)
In the United States, the 2016 election revealed that even a perceived increase in immigration could inspire a political backlash. Immigration advocates, for the most part, have responded to anti-immigrant sentiment by making empathy-based, humanitarian appeals. In “Open Borders,” Caplan takes a different approach. He makes a pragmatic argument about collective self-interest, expressed in terms of gross world product. His presumption—perhaps a good one—is that moral arguments will be of limited effect compared with the trillion-dollar potential of his open-bordered world.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Can Amy Klobuchar Maintain Her Momentum?

Heading into the Iowa caucuses , on February 3rd , Senator Amy Klobuchar , of Minnesota , was speaking like a candidate who ’ d been given bad news .
“ It is the first state , ” she said of Iowa , where she was lagging in the polls , “ but there ’ s many to follow.
” Sensing the mood , reporters were ready with gloomy questions .
Jonathan Martin , of the Times , wanted to know how well she would have to do in the caucuses in order to justify continuing on to the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , how poorly could she perform and still remain in the race .
“ Fourth ?
” he asked , at a gaggle following an event .
Klobuchar , who repeatedly reëngaged with Martin after initially walking away , wouldn ’ t be pinned down .
In the end , Klobuchar came in fifth in Iowa , unofficially earning around twelve per cent of the vote .
That result was good enough for her campaign to march on to New Hampshire—from one icy state to another .
When she arrived , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , following what was judged as her strong debate performance in Manchester , her persistence was rewarded .
On February 11th , during the New Hampshire primary , she came in a surprising third place , with nearly twenty per cent of the vote , behind Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg but well clear of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren , two candidates who had once been considered front-runners .
Was this a surge , as cable news was calling it ?
Klobuchar ’ s campaign announced that it had raised more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire debate .
Still , the primary model at FiveThirtyEight , as of Thursday morning , gives Klobuchar no better than a two-tenths of a per cent chance of securing the Democratic nomination .
News reports this week talked about the campaign scrambling to extend its success to Saturday ’ s Nevada caucuses .
The Washington Post reported that the Klobuchar team had no campaign bus there , so staffers had to drive the one they ’ d used in New Hampshire across the country .
Despite the long odds and logistical limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate and her supporters beginning to tell themselves a new , more hopeful story about the race ahead .

Heading into the Iowa caucuses, on February 3rd, Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, was speaking like a candidate who’d been given bad news. “It is the first state,” she said of Iowa, where she was lagging in the polls, “but there’s many to follow.” Sensing the mood, reporters were ready with gloomy questions. Jonathan Martin, of the Times, wanted to know how well she would have to do in the caucuses in order to justify continuing on to the New Hampshire primary. Or, put another way, how poorly could she perform and still remain in the race. “Fourth?” he asked, at a gaggle following an event. Klobuchar, who repeatedly reëngaged with Martin after initially walking away, wouldn’t be pinned down.
In the end, Klobuchar came in fifth in Iowa, unofficially earning around twelve per cent of the vote. That result was good enough for her campaign to march on to New Hampshire—from one icy state to another. When she arrived, her poll numbers there were similarly dismal, yet, following what was judged as her strong debate performance in Manchester, her persistence was rewarded. On February 11th, during the New Hampshire primary, she came in a surprising third place, with nearly twenty per cent of the vote, behind Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg but well clear of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, two candidates who had once been considered front-runners.
Was this a surge, as cable news was calling it? Klobuchar’s campaign announced that it had raised more than twelve million dollars since the New Hampshire debate. Still, the primary model at FiveThirtyEight, as of Thursday morning, gives Klobuchar no better than a two-tenths of a per cent chance of securing the Democratic nomination. News reports this week talked about the campaign scrambling to extend its success to Saturday’s Nevada caucuses. The Washington Post reported that the Klobuchar team had no campaign bus there, so staffers had to drive the one they’d used in New Hampshire across the country. Despite the long odds and logistical limitations, watching Klobuchar, you see a candidate and her supporters beginning to tell themselves a new, more hopeful story about the race ahead.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Warren Makes Her Electability Argument by Skewering Bloomberg at the Democratic Debate

On Wednesday night , Michael Bloomberg made his long-awaited début on the Democratic debate stage .
The last time Bloomberg had participated in a debate was in 2009 , when he was running for a third term as mayor of New York City .
By contrast , after eight previous Democratic primary debates , the others on the dais with him were well practiced—and poised to attack him .
Any number of issues could have posed problems for Bloomberg on Wednesday evening , but the most incendiary were related to the degrading comments he has allegedly made to female employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
Early in the debate , Hallie Jackson , one of the moderators , confronted Bloomberg directly about the charges , asking , “ Should Democrats expect better from their nominee ?
” Bloomberg tried to pivot , responding that a woman runs his foundation , that the most senior member of his administration in City Hall was a woman , and that forty per cent of his city commissioners were women .
But Senator Elizabeth Warren , who appeared energized on Wednesday night , had a blunt rejoinder .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ ‘ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
’ ” Warren then challenged Bloomberg to release women who had filed complaints against him from their nondisclosure agreements .
Bloomberg had a legalistic answer .
“ These are agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet , and that ’ s up to them , ” he said .
“ They signed those agreements , and we ’ ll live with them.
” Warren pressed her point .
“ I just want to be clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wish now to speak out and tell their side of the story about what it is that they allege , that ’ s now O.K .
with you ?
You ’ re releasing them on television tonight .
Is that right ?
” Of course , it was not right .
After Bloomberg muddled his way through another deflection , Warren turned to the audience and made her case .
“ This is not just a question of the mayor ’ s character , ” she said .
“ This is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements , and the drip , drip , drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against.
” Warren ’ s assessment of Bloomberg ’ s vulnerability against the President may or may not be correct .
Until Wednesday night , however , Bloomberg had been able to steer clear of the Democratic fray and make his electability argument largely unchallenged .
That is no longer the case .
This has been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about for who is best positioned to beat Donald Trump .
They may have to recalibrate once again .

On Wednesday night, Michael Bloomberg made his long-awaited début on the Democratic debate stage. The last time Bloomberg had participated in a debate was in 2009, when he was running for a third term as mayor of New York City. By contrast, after eight previous Democratic primary debates, the others on the dais with him were well practiced—and poised to attack him.
Any number of issues could have posed problems for Bloomberg on Wednesday evening, but the most incendiary were related to the degrading comments he has allegedly made to female employees and accusations of gender discrimination at his company. Early in the debate, Hallie Jackson, one of the moderators, confronted Bloomberg directly about the charges, asking, “Should Democrats expect better from their nominee?”
Bloomberg tried to pivot, responding that a woman runs his foundation, that the most senior member of his administration in City Hall was a woman, and that forty per cent of his city commissioners were women. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, who appeared energized on Wednesday night, had a blunt rejoinder. “I hope you heard what his defense was,” she said. “ ‘I’ve been nice to some women.’ ” Warren then challenged Bloomberg to release women who had filed complaints against him from their nondisclosure agreements.
Bloomberg had a legalistic answer. “These are agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet, and that’s up to them,” he said. “They signed those agreements, and we’ll live with them.” Warren pressed her point. “I just want to be clear,” she said. “If they wish now to speak out and tell their side of the story about what it is that they allege, that’s now O.K. with you? You’re releasing them on television tonight. Is that right?”
Of course, it was not right. After Bloomberg muddled his way through another deflection, Warren turned to the audience and made her case. “This is not just a question of the mayor’s character,” she said. “This is also a question about electability. We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements, and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against.”
Warren’s assessment of Bloomberg’s vulnerability against the President may or may not be correct. Until Wednesday night, however, Bloomberg had been able to steer clear of the Democratic fray and make his electability argument largely unchallenged. That is no longer the case. This has been the season of triangulating Democratic voters, casting about for who is best positioned to beat Donald Trump. They may have to recalibrate once again.