newyorker--2020-01-23--What to Do in N.Y.C. This Weekend: January 24th-26th

These are our top picks for the weekend of January 24th-26th .
For more event listings and reviews , check out Goings On About Town .
A good abstract painting can seem inevitable—less made than materialized , like a Helen Frankenthaler stain or the squalls of Joan Mitchell .
For thirty years , the American painter Jackie Saccoccio has been collaborating with chance on her compositions , pouring oil , scumbling dry pigment , dragging one canvas across another , and rattling , turning , and otherwise performing her surfaces until the results make the laws of gravity appear moot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saccoccio ’ s new show in two parts—at Chart , in TriBeCa , and at Van Doren Waxter , uptown—the artist introduces an old-fashioned technique : drawing directly onto her paintings , with oil pastel , in furious cursive bursts.—Andrea K. Scott For more art reviews , click here .
Like Kiss and Justin Bieber , the Residents are more recognizable for their image than for their sound .
Such a position is strange for an experimental band , but then so is the Residents ’ look : most famously , oversized eyeball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Friday and Saturday at MOMA , the largely anonymous collective adapts their lascivious 1988 album , “ God in Three Persons , ” for a belated onstage première that includes videos by the media artist John Sanborn featuring the nonbinary adult-film actor Jiz Lee.—Jay Ruttenberg For more night-life listings , click here .
Take care when eating the mini sausages at Aquavit , which are fermented for twenty-four hours , then cold-smoked , baked , seared to order , and served with a slightly fruity whole-grain mustard .
Their tight , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barley , spiced pork , and beef , is slick with delicious fat , and you might find , while reluctantly cutting the last of three in half—for equitable sharing with your dinner date , of course—that it slips from beneath your fork and bounces off your plate , as you both look on in abject horror.—Hannah Goldfield For more restaurant reviews , click here .
No special effects , no zombies—it takes very little for the playwright Richard Maxwell to summon the end of the world .
In his “ Queens Row @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , January 25th , three women—Nazira Hanna , Soraya Nabipour , and Antonia Summer—take turns delivering a monologue whose low-key intensity is , counterintuitively , accentuated by their unemotional delivery .
The minimalist , cryptic production can feel hermetic , but Maxwell , who directs in his usual deceptively detached style , and the set and lighting designer Sascha van Riel create a quiet sense of dread that peaks in silent moments : a door letting in a sliver of light , a silhouette against a window.—Elisabeth Vincentelli For more theatre reviews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s prodigious artistry was long stifled in the marketplace ; his second feature , “ My Brother ’ s Wedding , ” from 1983 , was pulled from him in the editing room and went uncompleted and unreleased until 2007 .
It ’ s a teeming blend of melodrama and comedy , centered on tensions between two adult sons in an African-American family in Watts , that unfolds widespread injustices and societal tragedies by way of intimate conflicts .
It screens on Saturday in MOMA ’ s series “ American Indies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviews , click here .
Using music ’ s powers of persuasion to espouse some social or political cause likely dates back to antiquity , but what ’ s especially appealing about Protestival , a weekend-long cluster of five concerts and a lecture at Spectrum , is its open-minded purview .
Offerings include a concert of new pieces commissioned by the trumpeter Kate Amrine , a screening of Sergei Eisenstein ’ s silent film “ Strike ” with improvised accompaniment by the pianist Shoko Nagai and the guitarist Marco Cappelli , solo sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the veteran singer-songwriter Tom Chapin , and a program of spirituals , hollers , and work songs reimagined by the guitarist John King and the keyboardist Mick Rossi.—Steve Smith For more classical-music listings , click here .
For the forty-fifth time , the Thunderbird American Indian Dancers ’ annual dance concert and powwow , at Theatre for the New City , this weekend and next , will serve as a reunion for Native Americans and an education for everyone else .
The program includes Marie Ponce ’ s remarkable “ Hoop Dance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” “ Shawl , ” “ Stomp , ” “ Jingle Dress , ” “ Robin , ” “ Smoke , ” and “ Fancy.
” As always , the troupe ’ s director , Louis Mofsie , a Brooklyn-born octogenarian who has been racking up lifetime-achievement awards of late , will do the introductions.—Brian Seibert For more dance listings , click here .

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--2020-01-23--Milk: It Does an Impeachment Good

Milk: It Does an Impeachment Good

In the Senate on Tuesday , the patrician leaders of our fifty states agreed that the official beverages of the impeachment trial would be water and milk .
Milk ?
What , no caffeine ?
No Coke , no Pepsi , no Dr Pepper ?
They could have chosen something trendy , like kombucha , or low-calorie , like Crystal Light , or even sporty , like Gatorade—some of those senators look seriously dehydrated .
But they went with good old-fashioned milk , which might be so boring that it would make for a speedy trial , or so comforting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly lull them to sleep .
Do they have the option of ordering chocolate milk ?
In any case , this is the first positive development to come out of the Ukraine scandal .
The dairy industry has been going udders up , fast .
For years , small dairy farms have been selling off their herds and closing down or switching to sustainable crops , like hemp .
In what sounds like a death knell , some giants of the dairy industry have recently filed for bankruptcy : the largest supplier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared bankruptcy in November , and Borden , personified by Elsie the Cow , followed , earlier this month .
Tom Toigo , a market-stand employee for Ronnybrook , a family-run dairy farm in the Hudson Valley , says , “ It is not a good time to be in the dairy business .
Sales of milk are down .
People see milk as not a healthy way to get nutrition—which , by the way , is not true.
” Milk is a better source of calcium than some of the products that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of protein and vitamins as well .
The strict definition of milk , according to Webster ’ s , is not very appetizing : from the Old English meolc or milc , it is “ a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young ; esp .
cow ’ s milk , used as a food by humans.
” The meaning broadened , in the way of words , into “ a liquid resembling milk in appearance : as the latex of a plant , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endosperm , the contents of an unripe kernel of grain.
” The dairy lobby has petitioned the F.D.A .
to restrict the definition of milk to mammals .
As Toigo says , “ Milk is from lactating animals.
” Sadly for the dairy lobbyists , the definition of milk has long since broken out of the barnyard .
First came soy milk , offered in cafeterias as an alternative with which the lactose-intolerant could adulterate their covfefe .
Then there was almond milk ( available in boxes alongside the European-style long-shelf-life milk ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protein shakes , and which Starbucks endorses as a dairy substitute in lattes .
Actually , the O.E.D .
cites a recipe from a cookbook of 1425 for “ mylke of almaundes.
” Last summer , huge ads appeared fore and aft on city buses for oat milk .
Now all the other nuts have piled on .
Circumambulate the grocery store of a busy Friday afternoon and you may see hazelnut milk , cashew milk ( and even—ew—cashewgurt ) , rice milk , hemp milk , sesame milk , macadamia milk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pistachio milk .
It won ’ t be long before we have mixed-nut milk .
To a dairy farmer , these nutty liquids are not milk .
As Toigo says , when pressed , “ Have you ever seen anyone milk a soybean ?
” There is even something on the shelf that contains omega-3 oils and algal oils—in other words , fish and seaweed—and is marketed with a cow on the label and the reassuring words “ contains milk.
” These are things we would never have dreamed of back in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and milk for breakfast , half-pints of milk ( plain or chocolate ) for lunch at school , and bottomless refills of whole milk at dinner .
At least in my house , we used milk to wash down the disgusting canned peas and spinach my mother served , because we had to clean our plates or no dessert .
The chant was constant : “ More milk , please !
” Milk has served as a metaphor from Biblical times .
Think of the land of milk and honey , or of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kindness.
” The Times noted in its year-end wrap-up that the definition of milk has expanded to include any substance animals produce to nourish their young : spider milk , flamingo milk , beetle milk , great-white-shark milk .
We can even get milk from a stone : What else is milk of magnesia ?
Meanwhile , the verb “ to milk ” has less benign connotations .
The seminal meaning is “ to extract milk by handling the teats of ( a cow , goat , ewe , etc.
, rarely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as early as 1528 , “ to milk ” was “ to drain away the contents of ; to get money out of , bleed ‘ pecuniarily ’ ; to exploit , turn into a source of ( usually ) illicit profit.
” Thus , one might say that milk is a theme of the impeachment , in that the President milked Ukraine for information and now his loyal senators are drinking it down .

In the Senate on Tuesday, the patrician leaders of our fifty states agreed that the official beverages of the impeachment trial would be water and milk. Milk? What, no caffeine? No Coke, no Pepsi, no Dr Pepper? They could have chosen something trendy, like kombucha, or low-calorie, like Crystal Light, or even sporty, like Gatorade—some of those senators look seriously dehydrated. But they went with good old-fashioned milk, which might be so boring that it would make for a speedy trial, or so comforting that it would pacify the hangry politicos and possibly lull them to sleep. Do they have the option of ordering chocolate milk?
In any case, this is the first positive development to come out of the Ukraine scandal. The dairy industry has been going udders up, fast. For years, small dairy farms have been selling off their herds and closing down or switching to sustainable crops, like hemp. In what sounds like a death knell, some giants of the dairy industry have recently filed for bankruptcy: the largest supplier in the nation, Dean Foods, declared bankruptcy in November, and Borden, personified by Elsie the Cow, followed, earlier this month. Tom Toigo, a market-stand employee for Ronnybrook, a family-run dairy farm in the Hudson Valley, says, “It is not a good time to be in the dairy business. Sales of milk are down. People see milk as not a healthy way to get nutrition—which, by the way, is not true.” Milk is a better source of calcium than some of the products that are replacing it, and a good source of protein and vitamins as well.
The strict definition of milk, according to Webster’s, is not very appetizing: from the Old English meolc or milc, it is “a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young; esp. cow’s milk, used as a food by humans.” The meaning broadened, in the way of words, into “a liquid resembling milk in appearance: as the latex of a plant, the juice of a coconut composed of liquid endosperm, the contents of an unripe kernel of grain.” The dairy lobby has petitioned the F.D.A. to restrict the definition of milk to mammals. As Toigo says, “Milk is from lactating animals.”
Sadly for the dairy lobbyists, the definition of milk has long since broken out of the barnyard. First came soy milk, offered in cafeterias as an alternative with which the lactose-intolerant could adulterate their covfefe. Then there was almond milk (available in boxes alongside the European-style long-shelf-life milk), which nutritionists recommend for smoothies and protein shakes, and which Starbucks endorses as a dairy substitute in lattes. Actually, the O.E.D. cites a recipe from a cookbook of 1425 for “mylke of almaundes.” Last summer, huge ads appeared fore and aft on city buses for oat milk. Now all the other nuts have piled on. Circumambulate the grocery store of a busy Friday afternoon and you may see hazelnut milk, cashew milk (and even—ew—cashewgurt), rice milk, hemp milk, sesame milk, macadamia milk. There are blends of almond milk and pistachio milk. It won’t be long before we have mixed-nut milk. To a dairy farmer, these nutty liquids are not milk. As Toigo says, when pressed, “Have you ever seen anyone milk a soybean?”
There is even something on the shelf that contains omega-3 oils and algal oils—in other words, fish and seaweed—and is marketed with a cow on the label and the reassuring words “contains milk.” These are things we would never have dreamed of back in the fifties, when we boomers had cereal and milk for breakfast, half-pints of milk (plain or chocolate) for lunch at school, and bottomless refills of whole milk at dinner. At least in my house, we used milk to wash down the disgusting canned peas and spinach my mother served, because we had to clean our plates or no dessert. The chant was constant: “More milk, please!”
Milk has served as a metaphor from Biblical times. Think of the land of milk and honey, or of Shakespeare’s “milk of human kindness.” The Times noted in its year-end wrap-up that the definition of milk has expanded to include any substance animals produce to nourish their young: spider milk, flamingo milk, beetle milk, great-white-shark milk. We can even get milk from a stone: What else is milk of magnesia?
Meanwhile, the verb “to milk” has less benign connotations. The seminal meaning is “to extract milk by handling the teats of (a cow, goat, ewe, etc., rarely, a woman).” But, as early as 1528, “to milk” was “to drain away the contents of; to get money out of, bleed ‘pecuniarily’; to exploit, turn into a source of (usually) illicit profit.” Thus, one might say that milk is a theme of the impeachment, in that the President milked Ukraine for information and now his loyal senators are drinking it down.


newyorker--2020-01-23--Dear Pepper: A Text Relationship and Building a Community

Dear Pepper is a monthly advice-column comic by Liana Finck .
If you have questions for Pepper about how to @ @ @ @ @ please direct them to dearpepperquestions @ gmail.com .
Questions may be edited for brevity and @ @

Dear Pepper is a monthly advice-column comic by Liana Finck. If you have questions for Pepper about how to act in difficult situations, please direct them to dearpepperquestions@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for brevity and clarity.


newyorker--2020-01-23--How Putin Controls Russia

How Putin Controls Russia

Last week , Vladimir Putin announced sweeping changes to the Russian constitution .
Shortly afterward , the Prime Minister and his government resigned ; there is no doubt that they did so at Putin ’ s behest .
( On Monday , Putin formally submitted the constitutional changes and fired the country ’ s prosecutor general . )
Putin ’ s tenure as President is not supposed to extend beyond 2024 , and the changes were widely seen as an attempt to extend his hold on power for as long as he deems fit .
But , beyond that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reorganize the Russian state .
To discuss Putin ’ s moves , I recently spoke by phone with Masha Lipman , a Moscow-based political analyst who has written extensively on Putin ’ s regime .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed Putin ’ s decision-making style , how his personality and leadership have changed over the past two decades , and the differences between his rule and the later years of the Soviet Union .
Four years ago , you wrote a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued , in part , “ The political environment in Russia is growing more chaotic .
Putin may be the Russian tsar , but it is less clear to what extent he is in control.
” Is it more clear how much he is in control today ?
The issue of control is tricky .
If one talks about whether government management is efficient in Russia , then no , it is not .
And Putin has repeatedly , over his very long time in office , spoken about the need to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few other very important goals .
I wouldn ’ t say he has delivered so well on those .
But if we define control as control over the élite , over making the decisions , of course Putin ’ s fully in control .
And the developments of the past few days are very clear and persuasive evidence of him being in control of making decisions .
How do you understand his moves over the past few days ?
This is a demonstration of how Putin is ultimately in charge and how he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an atmosphere of complete secrecy .
We still do not know who was aware of what was in store for the country three or four days ago , and to what extent there is anyone who can actually challenge his decisions , even verbally .
Putin rarely consults with anyone , and , even if he does , it is done in a totally opaque way .
He ’ s rarely explicit .
Even if he consults with some people in his circle , people leave without having a clear idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess .
Sometimes they guess right .
Sometimes they guess wrong .
Sometimes they try to curry favor and succeed , sometimes not .
At the end of the day he is the ultimate decision-maker .
And the strategy and the grand plans that he has for Russia , in their entirety , exist only in his mind .
You say he ’ s in a position of complete control .
But he ’ s not Kim Jong Un .
He doesn ’ t just say , “ This is a diktat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to have some interest in going through what appear to be , but of course are not , democratic procedures .
Is that just for public show ?
Is it to keep people within the Russian system , the élites , happy in some way ?
It often seems like he ’ s a dictator who doesn ’ t fully act the way people tend to think of dictators acting , if that makes sense .
Yes .
I think there ’ s truth to that .
He is way more sophisticated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule by diktat and whatever I say is the law , ” even if in practice it often is this way .
He already was facing this dilemma back in 2008 , when the constitution required that he step down after two consecutive terms as President .
And he was so popular at the time—his approval rating was above eighty per cent .
He could have changed the constitution easily and said , “ I ’ m President for life , ” which was something that his colleagues in some of the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But he wanted to look more , I don ’ t know , European .
He wanted to look more democratic .
He wanted to maintain the appearance of being engaged in a procedural democracy .
So he actually did step down but remained in charge .
He figured out the configuration in which he anointed his very loyal colleague , Dmitry Medvedev , as President , and he himself took the office of the Prime Minister .
So on the surface , on the formal levels , he did step down as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ informally in charge , and “ informally ” means a great deal more sometimes in Russia than the formal institutions do .
But he still kept the appearance of democratic legitimacy .
And I think he cares about that .
Putin has been the leader of Russia for more than two decades now .
Do you divide up that time into different eras , based on Russia ’ s place in the world or by the ways in which he chose to rule ?
One way to look at it is that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherited Russia in a state of misery and turmoil .
And he undertook to consolidate power in the Kremlin by weakening all these formally defined institutions of power .
He brought back stability and he was able to deliver prosperity because of the high and rising price of oil .
At that point , he was certainly concerned a great deal about being fully in control , and he was able to reinstate that control for himself .
However , he was also concerned about things such as a national development , economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance his top priority of political monopoly with socioeconomic goals of national development and economic growth .
In 2011 and 2012 , the economic growth slowed down .
He could no longer deliver as generously as he had before .
And , also in 2011 and 2012 , he faced mass public protests .
That was the first important turning point , when actually having faced the challenge of mass protests , he tilted the balance quite strongly in favor of control and away from national development and economic growth .
And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he made arguably the riskiest move in his whole career and annexed Crimea .
This came at a cost , of course , of Western sanctions and a slowdown of the economy .
And again he sacrificed those goals for the sake of control within and the concept of sovereignty abroad , which Putin thinks should be totally unbound .
Nobody should be able to dictate to Russia what to do .
Nobody should be able to bend its will and to bend its policy .
In 2001 , you wrote a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Books in which you talked about Putin ’ s contempt for the idea of a free press and argued that Putin has “ only one view of what is good or bad for Russia.
” But you also wrote in this piece that Putin is not an “ anti-liberal .
He is not even an anti-Westernizer.
” Do you think that that ’ s still true ?
Or do you think that Putin has fundamentally changed over the past two decades ?

Last week, Vladimir Putin announced sweeping changes to the Russian constitution. Shortly afterward, the Prime Minister and his government resigned; there is no doubt that they did so at Putin’s behest. (On Monday, Putin formally submitted the constitutional changes and fired the country’s prosecutor general.)
Putin’s tenure as President is not supposed to extend beyond 2024, and the changes were widely seen as an attempt to extend his hold on power for as long as he deems fit. But, beyond that, no one really knows how he plans to reorganize the Russian state. To discuss Putin’s moves, I recently spoke by phone with Masha Lipman, a Moscow-based political analyst who has written extensively on Putin’s regime. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed Putin’s decision-making style, how his personality and leadership have changed over the past two decades, and the differences between his rule and the later years of the Soviet Union.
Four years ago, you wrote a piece for The New Yorker in which you argued, in part, “The political environment in Russia is growing more chaotic. Putin may be the Russian tsar, but it is less clear to what extent he is in control.” Is it more clear how much he is in control today?
The issue of control is tricky. If one talks about whether government management is efficient in Russia, then no, it is not. And Putin has repeatedly, over his very long time in office, spoken about the need to increase the productivity of labor and quite a few other very important goals. I wouldn’t say he has delivered so well on those. But, if we define control as control over the élite, over making the decisions, of course Putin’s fully in control. And the developments of the past few days are very clear and persuasive evidence of him being in control of making decisions.
How do you understand his moves over the past few days?
This is a demonstration of how Putin is ultimately in charge and how he can make very important decisions by himself in an atmosphere of complete secrecy. We still do not know who was aware of what was in store for the country three or four days ago, and to what extent there is anyone who can actually challenge his decisions, even verbally.
Putin rarely consults with anyone, and, even if he does, it is done in a totally opaque way. He’s rarely explicit. Even if he consults with some people in his circle, people leave without having a clear idea of what his goal is and have to guess. Sometimes they guess right. Sometimes they guess wrong. Sometimes they try to curry favor and succeed, sometimes not. At the end of the day he is the ultimate decision-maker. And the strategy and the grand plans that he has for Russia, in their entirety, exist only in his mind.
You say he’s in a position of complete control. But he’s not Kim Jong Un. He doesn’t just say, “This is a diktat. I am President for life.” He seems to have some interest in going through what appear to be, but of course are not, democratic procedures. Is that just for public show? Is it to keep people within the Russian system, the élites, happy in some way? It often seems like he’s a dictator who doesn’t fully act the way people tend to think of dictators acting, if that makes sense.
Yes. I think there’s truth to that. He is way more sophisticated than to just say, “I rule by diktat and whatever I say is the law,” even if in practice it often is this way. He already was facing this dilemma back in 2008, when the constitution required that he step down after two consecutive terms as President. And he was so popular at the time—his approval rating was above eighty per cent. He could have changed the constitution easily and said, “I’m President for life,” which was something that his colleagues in some of the former Soviet republics had done before him. But he wanted to look more, I don’t know, European. He wanted to look more democratic. He wanted to maintain the appearance of being engaged in a procedural democracy. So he actually did step down but remained in charge. He figured out the configuration in which he anointed his very loyal colleague, Dmitry Medvedev, as President, and he himself took the office of the Prime Minister. So on the surface, on the formal levels, he did step down as the constitution requires. But he remained informally in charge, and “informally” means a great deal more sometimes in Russia than the formal institutions do. But he still kept the appearance of democratic legitimacy. And I think he cares about that.
Putin has been the leader of Russia for more than two decades now. Do you divide up that time into different eras, based on Russia’s place in the world or by the ways in which he chose to rule?
One way to look at it is that, when Putin first came to power, he inherited Russia in a state of misery and turmoil. And he undertook to consolidate power in the Kremlin by weakening all these formally defined institutions of power. He brought back stability and he was able to deliver prosperity because of the high and rising price of oil. At that point, he was certainly concerned a great deal about being fully in control, and he was able to reinstate that control for himself. However, he was also concerned about things such as a national development, economic growth. And he was able to balance his top priority of political monopoly with socioeconomic goals of national development and economic growth.
In 2011 and 2012, the economic growth slowed down. He could no longer deliver as generously as he had before. And, also in 2011 and 2012, he faced mass public protests. That was the first important turning point, when, actually having faced the challenge of mass protests, he tilted the balance quite strongly in favor of control and away from national development and economic growth. And this tilt became even stronger in 2014, when he made arguably the riskiest move in his whole career and annexed Crimea. This came at a cost, of course, of Western sanctions and a slowdown of the economy. And again he sacrificed those goals for the sake of control within and the concept of sovereignty abroad, which Putin thinks should be totally unbound. Nobody should be able to dictate to Russia what to do. Nobody should be able to bend its will and to bend its policy.


newyorker--2020-01-23--Will Any Republican Senators End This Charade?

Last weekend , Harry Windsor and his wife , Meghan Markle , discovered a harsh truth about being a British royal : it ’ s an all-in proposition , with no scope for half measures or divided loyalties .
Barely a week after the couple had proposed taking a “ step back ” from their official duties and spending most of their time in North America , the Queen rejected this idea and stripped them of their royal titles and entitlement to sup at the public purse .
After two days of legal arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are being reminded that membership in Trump ’ s party is a similarly all-embracing and restrictive proposition , but one that tars reputations rather than enhances them .
At this stage , the only question is whether any of the fifty-three captives will do a Harry and Meghan and make a run for it .
Sadly , it doesn ’ t look likely .
On Tuesday and early Wednesday morning , all of the Senate Republicans voted along party lines to block the House managers from subpoenaing more documents and calling additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser John Bolton and the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Then they settled in to listen to Adam Schiff and his colleagues lay out some of the voluminous evidence that Trump abused his office by trying to coerce the government of Ukraine into doing him a political favor .
“ It is clear from last night that we are now on a partisan , forced march towards a predetermined outcome , ” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse , a Democrat of Rhode Island , commented on Wednesday , at a news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was right , of course .
In this drama devoid of suspense , the allotted role of the G.O.P .
senators is to sit quietly and do whatever they are told by Mitch McConnell , the Senate Majority Leader , who informed us last month that he views the proceeding as a political one and himself as a virtual extension of the President ’ s legal team .
“ Everything I do during this , I ’ m coördinating with the White House counsel , ” he told Sean Hannity , of Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the G.O.P .
senators , especially those facing tough reëlection contests later this year , would presumably like some way to signal to voters in their states that they are seeking out all the evidence and taking it seriously , even if they don ’ t ultimately vote to impeach Trump .
McConnell and the White House ’ s lawyers aren ’ t giving them that option .
Rather than stipulating to some of the established facts about the Ukraine squeeze play and arguing that Trump ’ s misdeeds don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachable offense , the President ’ s defenders are trying to curtail the trial to just a couple of weeks , rehashing Trump ’ s talking points , and making the bogus argument that impeachment requires specific violations of criminal statutes .
“ There was no quid pro quo for anything , ” Michael Purpura , a White House lawyer , said on Tuesday .
Jay Sekulow , one of Trump ’ s personal attorneys , alluded to discredited conspiracy theories about the Mueller investigation .
Pat Cipollone , another White House lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House were barred from attending witness depositions .
Even some conservatives are crying foul .
“ Instead of sticking to the most defensible case for a Senate acquittal of Trump , Republicans from the president on down are making arguments that range from the implausible to the embarrassing , ” National Review said in an editorial .
The Republican lawyer George Conway , whose wife , Kellyanne , works for Trump , was even harsher about the President ’ s defense team .
“ They ’ re treating the American public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like they ’ re morons , ” Conway said to CNN ’ s Jake Tapper .
“ It ’ s just outrageous.
” All this is ultimately Trump ’ s doing , of course .
He never admits anything , demands total loyalty , and strikes out at anyone that transgresses these rules .
As with the Windsors , you can ’ t be a half-in Trump Republican .
Those who embark down that path tend to disappear from the political scene rapidly .
Ask the former Republican senators Bob Corker and Jeff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these dissidents was even more definitive than the one Buckingham Palace meted out to Harry and Meghan .
At a press conference on Wednesday in Davos , Switzerland , Trump suggested that he might prefer to hear from “ a lot of people ” at the trial , but that was just a head fake .
His entire legal strategy is based on excluding any new evidence or testimony .
During the same press conference , he gave the game away when he said , “ Honestly , we have all the material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material.
” He could just as easily have said : “ The fix is in.
” Much has been made of the concessions that a group of Republican moderates , including Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , and Mitt Romney , elicited from McConnell on how the trial would be conducted .
However , McConnell merely agreed that evidence collected in the House is admissible here and that both sides would have three days rather than two to present their cases .
The only potentially significant climbdown came when he agreed to ease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House impeachment inquiry and to allow another vote on calling witnesses after the first stages of the trial have been completed .
But this concession will matter only if , between now and next week , at least four Republican senators summon the will to break with Trump on an issue he cares about more than anything—his own survival .
“ This is a moment , I think , of reckoning , not just for the country and for the rule of law and for the Constitution .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators who took this oath , and for the Republican Party generally , ” Conway said in his CNN interview .
“ Are they going to stand for lies instead of truth ?
Are they going to stand for gaslighting instead of reality ?
Are they going to just do the bidding of this one man and put his interests over those of the country ?
That ’ s what this is about .
”

Last weekend, Harry Windsor and his wife, Meghan Markle, discovered a harsh truth about being a British royal: it’s an all-in proposition, with no scope for half measures or divided loyalties. Barely a week after the couple had proposed taking a “step back” from their official duties and spending most of their time in North America, the Queen rejected this idea and stripped them of their royal titles and entitlement to sup at the public purse.
After two days of legal arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the Senate’s fifty-three Republicans are being reminded that membership in Trump’s party is a similarly all-embracing and restrictive proposition, but one that tars reputations rather than enhances them. At this stage, the only question is whether any of the fifty-three captives will do a Harry and Meghan and make a run for it. Sadly, it doesn’t look likely.
On Tuesday and early Wednesday morning, all of the Senate Republicans voted along party lines to block the House managers from subpoenaing more documents and calling additional witnesses, such as the former national-security adviser John Bolton and the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Then they settled in to listen to Adam Schiff and his colleagues lay out some of the voluminous evidence that Trump abused his office by trying to coerce the government of Ukraine into doing him a political favor. “It is clear from last night that we are now on a partisan, forced march towards a predetermined outcome,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island, commented on Wednesday, at a news conference with other Democratic senators.
Whitehouse was right, of course. In this drama devoid of suspense, the allotted role of the G.O.P. senators is to sit quietly and do whatever they are told by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, who informed us last month that he views the proceeding as a political one and himself as a virtual extension of the President’s legal team. “Everything I do during this, I’m coördinating with the White House counsel,” he told Sean Hannity, of Fox News, in December. At least some of the G.O.P. senators, especially those facing tough reëlection contests later this year, would presumably like some way to signal to voters in their states that they are seeking out all the evidence and taking it seriously, even if they don’t ultimately vote to impeach Trump. McConnell and the White House’s lawyers aren’t giving them that option.
Rather than stipulating to some of the established facts about the Ukraine squeeze play and arguing that Trump’s misdeeds don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, the President’s defenders are trying to curtail the trial to just a couple of weeks, rehashing Trump’s talking points, and making the bogus argument that impeachment requires specific violations of criminal statutes. “There was no quid pro quo for anything,” Michael Purpura, a White House lawyer, said on Tuesday. Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, alluded to discredited conspiracy theories about the Mueller investigation. Pat Cipollone, another White House lawyer, falsely claimed that Republican members of the House were barred from attending witness depositions.
Even some conservatives are crying foul. “Instead of sticking to the most defensible case for a Senate acquittal of Trump, Republicans from the president on down are making arguments that range from the implausible to the embarrassing,” National Review said in an editorial. The Republican lawyer George Conway, whose wife, Kellyanne, works for Trump, was even harsher about the President’s defense team. “They’re treating the American public, they’re treating the Senate, like they’re morons,” Conway said to CNN’s Jake Tapper. “It’s just outrageous.”
All this is ultimately Trump’s doing, of course. He never admits anything, demands total loyalty, and strikes out at anyone that transgresses these rules. As with the Windsors, you can’t be a half-in Trump Republican. Those who embark down that path tend to disappear from the political scene rapidly. Ask the former Republican senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake. The banishment meted out to these dissidents was even more definitive than the one Buckingham Palace meted out to Harry and Meghan.
At a press conference on Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland, Trump suggested that he might prefer to hear from “a lot of people” at the trial, but that was just a head fake. His entire legal strategy is based on excluding any new evidence or testimony. During the same press conference, he gave the game away when he said, “Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” He could just as easily have said: “The fix is in.”
Much has been made of the concessions that a group of Republican moderates, including Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney, elicited from McConnell on how the trial would be conducted. However, McConnell merely agreed that evidence collected in the House is admissible here and that both sides would have three days rather than two to present their cases. The only potentially significant climbdown came when he agreed to another vote on calling witnesses after the first stages of the trial have been completed.
But this concession will matter only if, between now and next week, at least four Republican senators summon the will to break with Trump on an issue he cares about more than anything—his own survival. “This is a moment, I think, of reckoning, not just for the country and for the rule of law and for the Constitution. It’s a very specific day of reckoning for the Republican senators who took this oath, and for the Republican Party generally,” Conway said in his CNN interview. “Are they going to stand for lies instead of truth? Are they going to stand for gaslighting instead of reality? Are they going to just do the bidding of this one man and put his interests over those of the country? That’s what this is about.”


newyorker--2020-01-23--Watch Live: Day 3 of Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial in the Senate

In the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump , Thursday will mark the second day of the Democratic House managers laying out their case for the removal of the President .
On Wednesday , the seven managers , led by Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , methodically unravelled a detailed narrative of the President ’ s withholding of nearly four hundred million dollars in congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine , in exchange for the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens .
Schiff began with a conciliatory tone—one later adopted by the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman Jerrold Nadler—in what seemed like a course correction after tensions ran high late Tuesday night , resulting in an admonishment from Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial .
Schiff spoke for four hours on Wednesday ( the other six managers spoke for a combined three ) , orchestrating a vivid retelling of the facts that were gathered during the House Intelligence Committee ’ s impeachment inquiry late last year— “ a sort of greatest hits of the Trump-Ukraine scandal , ” as the staff writer Susan Glasser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trial , which was spent establishing the rules of the proceedings , the Senate , along party lines , moved to delay a vote on calling additional witnesses .
On Wednesday , Chuck Schumer , the Senate Minority Leader , ruled out a so-called witness bargain with Republicans , which could have yielded subpoenas for both John Bolton , whom Democrats are eager to hear from , and Hunter Biden , whose testimony , which Democrats call immaterial to the trial , interests Republicans .
“ This isn ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters , in response to the matter .
Nevertheless , the Senate chamber seemed filled with virtual witnesses , as the House managers played video after video of testimony from the Intelligence Committee inquiry—from Fiona Hill , Gordon Sondland , and William Taylor—in constructing their argument .
Many managers homed in on specific elements : Nadler spoke on the smear campaign against Marie Yovanovitch , the former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine ; Jason Crow , a security Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee , detailed the national-security concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Val Demings , a representative from Florida , focussed on the Trump Administration ’ s dangling of a coveted White House meeting before the Ukrainian leadership .
Schiff tied all the points together , and , following a break for dinner , resumed lobbying the Senate for witness testimony and documents that have thus far been denied .
“ The truth is going to come out , ” he said .
“ And the only question is : Do you want to hear it now ?
Do you want to know the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawyers , seated a few feet away , seethed in silence .
They weren ’ t alone .
Trump , returning to Washington from the World Economic Forum , in Davos , Switzerland , sent a hundred and forty-two tweets and retweets on Wednesday—more than any other day of his Presidency—most of them addressing the Senate trial .
There will surely be more to say , as the House managers still have some seventeen hours , across two more days , to make their case .
On Thursday , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they laid out on Wednesday to describe the first article of impeachment—abuse of power—and begin focussing on the constitutional ramifications of the President ’ s actions .
You can watch Day 3 of the Senate impeachment trial in the live stream above .

In the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, Thursday will mark the second day of the Democratic House managers laying out their case for the removal of the President. On Wednesday, the seven managers, led by Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, methodically unravelled a detailed narrative of the President’s withholding of nearly four hundred million dollars in congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine, in exchange for the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens. Schiff began with a conciliatory tone—one later adopted by the other managers, including the House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler—in what seemed like a course correction after tensions ran high late Tuesday night, resulting in an admonishment from Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial. Schiff spoke for four hours on Wednesday (the other six managers spoke for a combined three), orchestrating a vivid retelling of the facts that were gathered during the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry late last year—“a sort of greatest hits of the Trump-Ukraine scandal,” as the staff writer Susan Glasser put it.
On the first day of the trial, which was spent establishing the rules of the proceedings, the Senate, along party lines, moved to delay a vote on calling additional witnesses. On Wednesday, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, ruled out a so-called witness bargain with Republicans, which could have yielded subpoenas for both John Bolton, whom Democrats are eager to hear from, and Hunter Biden, whose testimony, which Democrats call immaterial to the trial, interests Republicans. “This isn’t like some fantasy-football trade,” Schiff told reporters, in response to the matter. Nevertheless, the Senate chamber seemed filled with virtual witnesses, as the House managers played video after video of testimony from the Intelligence Committee inquiry—from Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, and William Taylor—in constructing their argument. Many managers homed in on specific elements: Nadler spoke on the smear campaign against Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine; Jason Crow, a security Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, detailed the national-security concerns of withholding the aid to Ukraine; Val Demings, a representative from Florida, focussed on the Trump Administration’s dangling of a coveted White House meeting before the Ukrainian leadership. Schiff tied all the points together, and, following a break for dinner, resumed lobbying the Senate for witness testimony and documents that have thus far been denied. “The truth is going to come out,” he said. “And the only question is: Do you want to hear it now? Do you want to know the full truth now?” The President’s lawyers, seated a few feet away, seethed in silence.
They weren’t alone. Trump, returning to Washington from the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, sent a hundred and forty-two tweets and retweets on Wednesday—more than any other day of his Presidency—most of them addressing the Senate trial. There will surely be more to say, as the House managers still have some seventeen hours, across two more days, to make their case. On Thursday, they’re expected to apply the chronology and narrative they laid out on Wednesday to describe the first article of impeachment—abuse of power—and begin focussing on the constitutional ramifications of the President’s actions.
You can watch Day 3 of the Senate impeachment trial in the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-01-23--Six Birthday Gifts Your Man Will Love but Is Too Afraid to Ask For

I know what you ’ re thinking : “ The moon and the stars ?
!
” And though that would be an unforgettable gift—albeit tedious to wrap—no , I do not mean the final frontier .
What your beau really wants is a little breathing room , some “ me ” time .
What will he do with that time , you ask ?
Well , seeing as he already spends five minutes of his commute home from work just sitting in his car , staring into the distance , thinking about horses , my guess is he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Look , I get it .
He ’ s not the best storyteller in town .
Does he forget key details ?
Yes .
Does he remember them three minutes later and then try to backtrack , only to make things even more confusing ?
Every time .
But would he appreciate the effort of you at least trying to follow the ups and downs of managing the only Lids hat superstore in a forty-three-mile radius ?
Yes—yes , he would .
I know it ’ s frustrating that he prefers the old-school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace of one episode per week , but you have to understand—he needs this kind of stability in his life right now .
If you had listened when he talked about his day , you would know that the hat business is no cakewalk .
Measuring head sizes , embroidering Instagram handles on beanies , and returning correct change are just a few of the duties that demand every last iota of his concentration .
And , on top of all that , he now also has to worry that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episodes ahead in “ Gilmore Girls.
” How very Rory of you .
Come to one of his band ’ s gigs .
He ’ s been in the band since before you two got together , and you still haven ’ t made it to a show .
Not cool .
Trust me , I understand that a Baha Men cover band isn ’ t exactly everyone ’ s—or , quite frankly , anyone ’ s—cup of tea .
And , sure , the fact that they play exclusively at a bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very alluring , either .
But , hey , that ’ s your tambourine-playing man up there !
So , pick a Monday night ( also not helping their case ) , get a little drunk , and round up a few friends to help show your budding rock star some love .
Who knows ?
You might accidentally have some fun , too .
Well , this should not come as a surprise .
He feels unsupported , unimportant , and honestly unsure about how to move forward .
But please do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or admitting defeat .
Rather , it ’ s him acknowledging that there is room for improvement , and that ’ s what he wants , above all else .
Above his band , above his TV dramedies , above his hats—he wants his life with you .
And , although going to a stranger with your personal problems might seem weird at first , I ’ m sure you ’ ll quickly find comfort in an unbiased viewpoint .
His co-workers will also thank you , as they ’ ll finally be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hand-feed him oats before you ride him naked through a field like a horse .
Now , this one should come as a surprise , as he never previously mentioned anything even remotely close to this in the bedroom .
But what can I say ?
You ’ ve landed yourself a hundred-per-cent , no-doubt-about-it , bona-fide freak .
So , strap on those spurs , grab the cowboy hat that he got you for your anniversary ( makes more sense now , doesn ’ t it ? )
, and take your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a birthday that he will certainly never forget .

Space.
I know what you’re thinking: “The moon and the stars?!” And though that would be an unforgettable gift—albeit tedious to wrap—no, I do not mean the final frontier. What your beau really wants is a little breathing room, some “me” time.
What will he do with that time, you ask? Well, seeing as he already spends five minutes of his commute home from work just sitting in his car, staring into the distance, thinking about horses, my guess is he’ll probably do more of that.
Listen when he tells work stories.
Look, I get it. He’s not the best storyteller in town. Does he forget key details? Yes. Does he remember them three minutes later and then try to backtrack, only to make things even more confusing? Every time. But would he appreciate the effort of you at least trying to follow the ups and downs of managing the only Lids hat superstore in a forty-three-mile radius? Yes—yes, he would.
Stop watching ahead on Netflix!
I know it’s frustrating that he prefers the old-school method of watching shows, at a pace of one episode per week, but you have to understand—he needs this kind of stability in his life right now.
If you had listened when he talked about his day, you would know that the hat business is no cakewalk. Measuring head sizes, embroidering Instagram handles on beanies, and returning correct change are just a few of the duties that demand every last iota of his concentration. And, on top of all that, he now also has to worry that you’re at home on the couch, five episodes ahead in “Gilmore Girls.” How very Rory of you.
Come to one of his band’s gigs.
He’s been in the band since before you two got together, and you still haven’t made it to a show. Not cool.
Trust me, I understand that a Baha Men cover band isn’t exactly everyone’s—or, quite frankly, anyone’s—cup of tea. And, sure, the fact that they play exclusively at a bar nicknamed the Tetanus Hotbed isn’t very alluring, either. But, hey, that’s your tambourine-playing man up there! So, pick a Monday night (also not helping their case), get a little drunk, and round up a few friends to help show your budding rock star some love. Who knows? You might accidentally have some fun, too.
Couples therapy.
Well, this should not come as a surprise. He feels unsupported, unimportant, and honestly unsure about how to move forward. But please do not interpret this as him wanting out or admitting defeat. Rather, it’s him acknowledging that there is room for improvement, and that’s what he wants, above all else. Above his band, above his TV dramedies, above his hats—he wants his life with you.
And, although going to a stranger with your personal problems might seem weird at first, I’m sure you’ll quickly find comfort in an unbiased viewpoint. His co-workers will also thank you, as they’ll finally be able to eat lunch in peace.
Hand-feed him oats before you ride him naked through a field like a horse.
Now, this one should come as a surprise, as he never previously mentioned anything even remotely close to this in the bedroom. But what can I say? You’ve landed yourself a hundred-per-cent, no-doubt-about-it, bona-fide freak.
So, strap on those spurs, grab the cowboy hat that he got you for your anniversary (makes more sense now, doesn’t it?), and take your horse to the Old Town Road for a birthday that he will certainly never forget.


newyorker--2020-01-24--HK Food Court, a One-Stop Shop for Pan-Asian Cravings

About a year ago , I moved from one Brooklyn neighborhood to another .
After several recent trips to the new Elmhurst outpost of HK Food Court ( the original is in Flushing ) , I ’ ve been wondering if I shouldn ’ t have relocated to Queens instead .
Of course , there are considerations other than eating when deciding where to live , but , at the moment , my difficulty getting there leaves me feeling a little sorry for myself .
Once you ’ ve arrived , HK Food Court is an emblem of ease , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfilling a variety of cravings .
A couple of dozen stalls—serving regional Chinese , Thai , Vietnamese , Japanese , and Filipino cuisine—line the perimeter of a windowless but brightly lit box that used to house a pan-Asian grocery store ; in the center is cafeteria-style seating for about two hundred , livened up with potted plants .
My most pressing craving is for the hot-and-sour soup from Lao Ma Spicy .
The vender specializes in dry pot ( like hot pot but brothless , and cooked to order ) , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soup is what haunts my daydreams : a large disposable plastic bowl priced irresistibly , at $ 4.99 , and packed precariously full of glass noodles in an intensely flavorful broth—indeed hot , both in temperature and flavor , scarlet with chili oil , and vinegar-sour .
For a few dollars extra , you can add a protein : beef , shrimp balls , Spam .
Either way , the final and most crucial ingredients are dry-roasted peanuts with their papery brown skins intact , sweet leaves of steamed bok choy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sautéed with tender curls of wood-ear mushroom and pickled radish .
Skewers , too , go twirling through my mind .
One evening , at Lan Zhou Ramen , I ordered fat coins of Japanese eggplant—so shellacked in oil that they looked like porcelain yet melted forgivingly in the mouth—and bunches of chives as pliant as seagrass .
From Mr. Liu Henan Wide Ramen , one stall over : cubes of fried wheat-bran dough dusted in cumin and a spiral-cut potato .
To say that the tables are communal is an understatement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to point at the potato , wanting to know where he could find it .
( He was gone before I could tell him that it wasn ’ t quite as good as it looked . )
One afternoon , a woman sipped milky tea and took bites from a flaky orange-hued pastry , exposing a dark mash within .
My friend inquired as to what it was and where she got it .
The dough was made with pumpkin , she explained , the filling sweet black-bean paste—and she had brought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plastic bag for another , insisting that we take it .
I knew what to get at Khao Ka Moo , because I saw many people hunched over the same dish , and , plus , the stall is named for it : khao ka moo , otherwise known as stewed pork leg over rice , garnished with a hard-boiled egg and pickled mustard greens and served with a cup of clear pork broth .
I knew what to get at a seafood stall called Chili Boiled Fish , where live ones flopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cashier with a tattoo on her neck of a lipstick kiss carefully sealed a patterned bowl ( for which I paid a five-dollar deposit ) with plastic wrap to insure that it stayed hot .
That proved unnecessary ; it was many minutes before the dish cooled to less than scalding—which didn ’ t stop me from immediately plunging my flimsy spoon into the oily depths to find silky fillets of fish , tender cabbage , and chunks of cucumber , Sichuan peppercorns clinging to all , staining my rice with neon drips @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pinched dough around minced meat and piled Styrofoam plates with slippery steamed dumplings : pork , shrimp , and chive ; pork and celery ; wontons swimming in chili oil , topped with clumps of sharp raw garlic .
In a moment of respite , the women snacked on half-peeled sweet potatoes , holding their leathery skins like ice-cream cones .
“ Can I order one of those ?
” I wondered aloud .
They shook their heads and laughed .
( Dishes $ 2- $ 35 . )
♦

About a year ago, I moved from one Brooklyn neighborhood to another. After several recent trips to the new Elmhurst outpost of HK Food Court (the original is in Flushing), I’ve been wondering if I shouldn’t have relocated to Queens instead. Of course, there are considerations other than eating when deciding where to live, but, at the moment, my difficulty getting there leaves me feeling a little sorry for myself.
Lan Zhou Ramen serves noodle soups and a wide range of barbecued skewers. Photograph by David Williams for The New Yorker
Once you’ve arrived, HK Food Court is an emblem of ease, a fast and comfortable one-stop shop for fulfilling a variety of cravings. A couple of dozen stalls—serving regional Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipino cuisine—line the perimeter of a windowless but brightly lit box that used to house a pan-Asian grocery store; in the center is cafeteria-style seating for about two hundred, livened up with potted plants.
My most pressing craving is for the hot-and-sour soup from Lao Ma Spicy. The vender specializes in dry pot (like hot pot but brothless, and cooked to order), which is worth having, too. But the soup is what haunts my daydreams: a large disposable plastic bowl priced irresistibly, at $4.99, and packed precariously full of glass noodles in an intensely flavorful broth—indeed hot, both in temperature and flavor, scarlet with chili oil, and vinegar-sour. For a few dollars extra, you can add a protein: beef, shrimp balls, Spam. Either way, the final and most crucial ingredients are dry-roasted peanuts with their papery brown skins intact, sweet leaves of steamed bok choy, and an intoxicating spoonful of ground pork, sautéed with tender curls of wood-ear mushroom and pickled radish.
In the center of the room is cafeteria-style seating for two hundred, where diners gather with trays from the various stalls. Clockwise from left: hot-and-sour soup from Lao Ma Spicy; dumplings and cucumber salad from Famous Foods; skewers from Lan Zhou Ramen. Photograph by David Williams for The New Yorker
Skewers, too, go twirling through my mind. One evening, at Lan Zhou Ramen, I ordered fat coins of Japanese eggplant—so shellacked in oil that they looked like porcelain yet melted forgivingly in the mouth—and bunches of chives as pliant as seagrass. From Mr. Liu Henan Wide Ramen, one stall over: cubes of fried wheat-bran dough dusted in cumin and a spiral-cut potato.
To say that the tables are communal is an understatement. That evening, a stranger darted over to point at the potato, wanting to know where he could find it. (He was gone before I could tell him that it wasn’t quite as good as it looked.) One afternoon, a woman sipped milky tea and took bites from a flaky orange-hued pastry, exposing a dark mash within. My friend inquired as to what it was and where she got it. The dough was made with pumpkin, she explained, the filling sweet black-bean paste—and she had brought it from home. She dug into a plastic bag for another, insisting that we take it.
At a Thai stand called Khao Ka Moo, the eponymous speciality: stewed pork leg over rice with sides of pickled mustard greens, Chinese broccoli, a hard-boiled egg, a cup of pork broth, and jasmine tea. Photograph by David Williams for The New Yorker
I knew what to get at Khao Ka Moo, because I saw many people hunched over the same dish, and, plus, the stall is named for it: khao ka moo, otherwise known as stewed pork leg over rice, garnished with a hard-boiled egg and pickled mustard greens and served with a cup of clear pork broth.
I knew what to get at a seafood stall called Chili Boiled Fish, where live ones flopped around in a tank. A friendly cashier with a tattoo on her neck of a lipstick kiss carefully sealed a patterned bowl (for which I paid a five-dollar deposit) with plastic wrap to insure that it stayed hot. That proved unnecessary; it was many minutes before the dish cooled to less than scalding—which didn’t stop me from immediately plunging my flimsy spoon into the oily depths to find silky fillets of fish, tender cabbage, and chunks of cucumber, Sichuan peppercorns clinging to all, staining my rice with neon drips.
The building was previously home to a pan-Asian supermarket. Photograph by David Williams for The New Yorker
At Famous Food, three women pinched dough around minced meat and piled Styrofoam plates with slippery steamed dumplings: pork, shrimp, and chive; pork and celery; wontons swimming in chili oil, topped with clumps of sharp raw garlic. In a moment of respite, the women snacked on half-peeled sweet potatoes, holding their leathery skins like ice-cream cones. “Can I order one of those?” I wondered aloud. They shook their heads and laughed. (Dishes $2-$35.) ♦


newyorker--2020-01-24--“The Gentlemen” and “Color Out of Space,” Reviewed

It ’ s an old story .
A smart American , blessed with ambition and style , finds a sweet slot in the upper reaches of the British class system .
Think of Fred Astaire ’ s sister and dance partner , Adele , who married a son of the Duke of Devonshire , in 1932 , and became Lady Cavendish .
( Her husband died of drink . )
As for Meghan Markle , she aimed higher still and hit a prince , though the pleasure seems to have palled ; in regard to the Royal Family , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half in , half out , a position that is no more popular with constitutional experts than it is with midwives .
Now we have Mickey Pearson ( Matthew McConaughey ) , the drawling hero of “ The Gentlemen , ” which is written and directed by Guy Ritchie .
Mickey has risen from humble stock to the ramparts of wealth , having lost every grain of humility along the way .
We learn that he came to England as a Rhodes Scholar ; that he sold drugs to the idle youths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the major league , cultivating cannabis on vast underground farms , on land owned by English noblemen—who , needless to say , are desperate for cash , being far poorer than Mickey himself .
He may dress like a countryman of yore , in flat caps and tweed jackets the color of marmalade , and we first see him ordering “ a pint and a pickled egg ” in a pub , but don ’ t be fooled .
His business , should you wish to acquire it , can be yours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markle married into the wrong family .
The bulk of the film is told in flashback by Fletcher ( Hugh Grant ) , a private investigator , who has dug into Mickey ’ s past and plans to present his findings to Big Dave ( Eddie Marsan ) , the editor of the Daily Print .
( Is that really the best title for a newspaper that Ritchie could dream up ? )
However , as Fletcher explains to Raymond ( Charlie Hunnam ) , Mickey ’ s fixer , he will , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dirt to himself rather than pass it on to Big Dave .
“ Small ” means twenty million pounds .
But Mickey is too busy to be blackmailed .
He has two potential buyers sniffing around : an American named Matthew ( Jeremy Strong ) and a dapper Chinese gangster called Dry Eye ( Henry Golding ) .
But which of them to trust ?
Maybe neither ?
“ The Gentlemen ” is a mongrel of a movie .
There are not enough twists and tangles for a proper mystery , not enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not enough laughs for a comedy , though I did enjoy the sight of Fletcher jumping over low hedges like a little boy .
So what is Ritchie up to ?
Indulging an odd but selective obsession with the strata of British society , I ’ d say , delighting in the lofty and the lowly , and not bothering with the folks in between .
( For a subtler journey through such gradations , I recommend “ The League of Gentlemen , ” a British caper from 1960 , about a gang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who perpetrate a heist ; in the opening shot , one of them emerges from a manhole , clad in a tuxedo , and gets into a Rolls-Royce . )
“ The Gentlemen ” leaps from rolling rural estates to South London projects—neither location , to be honest , is particularly convincing—and reaches its apogee in Laura ( Eliot Sumner ) , a lord ’ s daughter , whose blue blood is tinctured with heroin , and who has to be rescued from a nest of junkies .
To examine a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be like leafing through a menswear catalogue .
The autumn collection , I fancy .
Yet a genuine seediness spills from the edges of the plot .
A typical conversation runs like this : “ What am I guilty of ?
” “ Being a cunt.
” People snicker at an Asian guy named Phuc—isn ’ t that genius ?
—and Fletcher even tries out his old-school impersonation of Oriental speech .
Matthew , a billionaire , is referred to as “ the Jew.
” Grimmest of all is a head-to-head in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You black cunt , ” whereupon the two of them stand there and discuss the phrase , weighing up exactly how racist it is .
Ritchie , no doubt , would argue that these are fictional figures talking , and that he is merely representing regular chaffing and chat .
( In one respect , he ’ s right .
In Britain , unlike in America , the C-word is commonly and lavishly traded between men as a term of genial mockery . )
But make no mistake , “ The Gentlemen ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topped off with a layer of homophobia ; the more camp your character , the more likely you are to end up as a plaything of fate .
In short , the movie is baiting us , praying that we will take offense , and challenging us to flinch .
First person to whine is a wuss .
No wonder so many members of the cast have an air of confusion .
McConaughey , usually a fount of confidence , looks somewhat baffled and beached as Mickey , and I regret to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foulmouthed wife , Michelle Dockery is no more plausible than she was as the cool-tongued Lady Mary , in “ Downton Abbey.
” As for Henry Golding , it ’ s hard to take him seriously as a gangster when he comes across as slightly less frightening than a spring lamb .
So who does redeem this unsavory tale ?
Colin Farrell , for one , who plays a trainer at the gym , radiating energy like sweat .
Watch him in a café , when somebody pulls a knife on him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a paper napkin .
Above all , we have Hugh Grant , whose hilariously fruitful middle age shows no sign of decay .
Having been a model of uxorious devotion , aghast with gallantry , in “ Florence Foster Jenkins ” ( 2016 ) ; a thespian avenger , in “ Paddington 2 ” ( 2017 ) ; and , on TV , a party political leader enmeshed in his own lies , in “ A Very English Scandal ” ( 2018 ) , he now sinks his teeth into the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to remember here is that Grant is no friend of the British tabloids , which he has successfully sued for defamation ; when they were accused of hacking private phones , he became a prominent voice in the chorus of complaint .
The full force of his venom , you feel , feeds into his portrayal of Fletcher , a professional snoop , from the smoky shade of his spectacles and the snivelling mewl of his accent to his pitiful goatee , which could well be a cheap disguise .
Grant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own loathing , transforming it into a minor work of dramatic art , like a mason carving a gargoyle .
That takes class .
To say that Nicolas Cage seems unhinged in his new movie , “ Color Out of Space , ” is to give nothing away .
Many moons have waxed and waned , after all , since Cage last gave a performance that could accurately be described as hinged .
No longer content with alarming us , he now takes himself by surprise , much as Peter Lorre—a previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shivers .
What distinguishes the latest Cage freak-out is the care with which it ’ s paced ; not until halfway through does he start to lose his hinge , and , even when his face is sprayed with blood , he keeps his glasses on , as if hoping to settle down with a book .
Oh , and , if you ’ ve always wanted to watch him milk an alpaca , your time has come .

It’s an old story. A smart American, blessed with ambition and style, finds a sweet slot in the upper reaches of the British class system. Think of Fred Astaire’s sister and dance partner, Adele, who married a son of the Duke of Devonshire, in 1932, and became Lady Cavendish. (Her husband died of drink.) As for Meghan Markle, she aimed higher still and hit a prince, though the pleasure seems to have palled; in regard to the Royal Family, she and her spouse apparently wanted to be half in, half out, a position that is no more popular with constitutional experts than it is with midwives.
Now we have Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), the drawling hero of “The Gentlemen,” which is written and directed by Guy Ritchie. Mickey has risen from humble stock to the ramparts of wealth, having lost every grain of humility along the way. We learn that he came to England as a Rhodes Scholar; that he sold drugs to the idle youths of Oxford; and that he then graduated to the major league, cultivating cannabis on vast underground farms, on land owned by English noblemen—who, needless to say, are desperate for cash, being far poorer than Mickey himself. He may dress like a countryman of yore, in flat caps and tweed jackets the color of marmalade, and we first see him ordering “a pint and a pickled egg” in a pub, but don’t be fooled. His business, should you wish to acquire it, can be yours for four hundred million pounds. Meghan Markle married into the wrong family.
The bulk of the film is told in flashback by Fletcher (Hugh Grant), a private investigator, who has dug into Mickey’s past and plans to present his findings to Big Dave (Eddie Marsan), the editor of the Daily Print. (Is that really the best title for a newspaper that Ritchie could dream up?) However, as Fletcher explains to Raymond (Charlie Hunnam), Mickey’s fixer, he will, for a small fee, keep the dirt to himself rather than pass it on to Big Dave. “Small” means twenty million pounds. But Mickey is too busy to be blackmailed. He has two potential buyers sniffing around: an American named Matthew (Jeremy Strong) and a dapper Chinese gangster called Dry Eye (Henry Golding). But which of them to trust? Maybe neither?
“The Gentlemen” is a mongrel of a movie. There are not enough twists and tangles for a proper mystery, not enough thrills for an action flick, and not enough laughs for a comedy, though I did enjoy the sight of Fletcher jumping over low hedges like a little boy. So what is Ritchie up to? Indulging an odd but selective obsession with the strata of British society, I’d say, delighting in the lofty and the lowly, and not bothering with the folks in between. (For a subtler journey through such gradations, I recommend “The League of Gentlemen,” a British caper from 1960, about a gang of ex-soldiers, of varying ranks, who perpetrate a heist; in the opening shot, one of them emerges from a manhole, clad in a tuxedo, and gets into a Rolls-Royce.) “The Gentlemen” leaps from rolling rural estates to South London projects—neither location, to be honest, is particularly convincing—and reaches its apogee in Laura (Eliot Sumner), a lord’s daughter, whose blue blood is tinctured with heroin, and who has to be rescued from a nest of junkies.
To examine a bunch of stills from “The Gentlemen” would be like leafing through a menswear catalogue. The autumn collection, I fancy. Yet a genuine seediness spills from the edges of the plot. A typical conversation runs like this: “What am I guilty of?” “Being a cunt.” People snicker at an Asian guy named Phuc—isn’t that genius?—and Fletcher even tries out his old-school impersonation of Oriental speech. Matthew, a billionaire, is referred to as “the Jew.” Grimmest of all is a head-to-head in a gym. One man calls another “You black cunt,” whereupon the two of them stand there and discuss the phrase, weighing up exactly how racist it is.
Ritchie, no doubt, would argue that these are fictional figures talking, and that he is merely representing regular chaffing and chat. (In one respect, he’s right. In Britain, unlike in America, the C-word is commonly and lavishly traded between men as a term of genial mockery.) But make no mistake, “The Gentlemen” is a nasty piece of work, topped off with a layer of homophobia; the more camp your character, the more likely you are to end up as a plaything of fate. In short, the movie is baiting us, praying that we will take offense, and challenging us to flinch. First person to whine is a wuss.
No wonder so many members of the cast have an air of confusion. McConaughey, usually a fount of confidence, looks somewhat baffled and beached as Mickey, and I regret to report that, in the part of his foulmouthed wife, Michelle Dockery is no more plausible than she was as the cool-tongued Lady Mary, in “Downton Abbey.” As for Henry Golding, it’s hard to take him seriously as a gangster when he comes across as slightly less frightening than a spring lamb. So who does redeem this unsavory tale? Colin Farrell, for one, who plays a trainer at the gym, radiating energy like sweat. Watch him in a café, when somebody pulls a knife on him. He swats it aside as if it were a paper napkin.
Above all, we have Hugh Grant, whose hilariously fruitful middle age shows no sign of decay. Having been a model of uxorious devotion, aghast with gallantry, in “Florence Foster Jenkins” (2016); a thespian avenger, in “Paddington 2” (2017); and, on TV, a party political leader enmeshed in his own lies, in “A Very English Scandal” (2018), he now sinks his teeth into the role of Fletcher with understandable glee. The thing to remember here is that Grant is no friend of the British tabloids, which he has successfully sued for defamation; when they were accused of hacking private phones, he became a prominent voice in the chorus of complaint. The full force of his venom, you feel, feeds into his portrayal of Fletcher, a professional snoop, from the smoky shade of his spectacles and the snivelling mewl of his accent to his pitiful goatee, which could well be a cheap disguise. Grant, in other words, has fun with his own loathing, transforming it into a minor work of dramatic art, like a mason carving a gargoyle. That takes class.
To say that Nicolas Cage seems unhinged in his new movie, “Color Out of Space,” is to give nothing away. Many moons have waxed and waned, after all, since Cage last gave a performance that could accurately be described as hinged. No longer content with alarming us, he now takes himself by surprise, much as Peter Lorre—a previous master of the wild-eyed—used to give himself the shivers. What distinguishes the latest Cage freak-out is the care with which it’s paced; not until halfway through does he start to lose his hinge, and, even when his face is sprayed with blood, he keeps his glasses on, as if hoping to settle down with a book. Oh, and, if you’ve always wanted to watch him milk an alpaca, your time has come.
Cage plays Nathan Gardner, a loving family man. He lives in the woods with his wife, Theresa (Joely Richardson), and their children. The oldest is Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), whose hobbies include pagan rituals. Then comes Benny (Brendan Meyer) and, last, young Jack—played by Julian Hilliard, who has already starred in “The Haunting of Hill House” (2018) and will appear later this year in “The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It.” I hope he gets plenty of fresh air.
One night, a meteorite lands outside the Gardner residence. It glows a violent purple-pink, a hue that proceeds to spread over the entire movie, infecting both flora and fauna, as well as the visions that explode in the characters’ minds. Audiences, I predict, will be divided between the elderly, who came of age in the nineteen-sixties and will view the film as an act of regroovification, and fortysomethings who used to be fans of My Little Pony and still have a special place in their hearts for Twilight Sparkle—the pinky-purple nag par excellence.
The movie springs from an H. P. Lovecraft story of the same name, which is considerably scarier, stealthier, and more scientifically detailed than what we observe onscreen. The director is Richard Stanley, who is best known for having tried, for three or four whole days, to take charge of “The Island of Dr. Moreau” (1996), before the strain of coping with Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer became too much. In the new film, we glimpse Brando on TV, which suggests that Stanley may never be able to exorcise him, although “Color Out of Space” is sufficiently festooned with lunatic excesses of its own. The cat named G-spot, for instance. The fingers that are chopped instead of carrots (“Dinner’s ready!”). The adult and child who get fused together, like vertebrae, back to back. The tomato-hurling scene. The strangely Trumpian hand gestures to which Nathan resorts in his psychedelic rage. And the moment when he shouts at his daughter, “I’ve had it. With your drama. Lavinia.” Really? Where does she get it from, I wonder? ♦