newyorker--2020-02-03--Briefly Noted Book Reviews

Briefly Noted Book Reviews

A Game of Birds and Wolves , by Simon Parkin ( Little , Brown ) .
In 1941 , the British Navy faced a seemingly insurmountable threat from the German U-boat fleet , whose “ wolfpack ” tactics baffled Allied commanders .
In this engaging history , Parkin tells how members of the Women ’ s Royal Naval Service , known as Wrens , helped develop a tactical training game that led to a decisive turning point in the war .
They brought statistical and mathematical sophistication to their task , turning the floor of their control room into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hypothetical scenarios .
Parkin paints a vivid picture of training sessions in which seasoned sailors chafed at being tutored by “ an inexperienced girl , ” and captures each maneuver in the ensuing sea battles with zeal .
Dominion , by Tom Holland ( Basic Books ) .
This lively , capacious history of Christianity emphasizes the extent to which the religion still underpins Western liberal values .
Holland argues that Christianity is to thank for our belief in the “ intrinsic value ” of human life and our respect for poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secular ideas , such as Marxism , to religious ethics , including brotherhood and equality , and emphasizes Christianity ’ s progressive aspects .
St. Catherine of Siena ’ s rejection of an arranged marriage—she claimed that she was betrothed to Christ and , later , that her wedding ring was the foreskin from Christ ’ s circumcision—is seen not as an example of virginal virtue but in quasi-feminist terms , as establishing the idea that “ consent , not coercion , ” is the “ proper foundation of a marriage.
” Interior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The Asian immigrant experience is rendered as a series of stereotypical roles in a weekly television show in this inventive and entertaining novel .
At a Chinese restaurant , the Golden Palace , workers live upstairs and double as extras .
The protagonist , Willis Wu , starts off as “ Background Oriental Male , ” later rising to “ Generic Asian Man ” and “ Special Guest Star , ” on a trajectory that he hopes will take him to the pinnacle of “ Kung Fu Guy.
” Narrated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented in screenplay format , the novel incisively examines the Asian-American reality of “ being perpetual foreigners ” in the United States , a minority whose story “ will never fit into Black and White.
” Stateway ’ s Garden , by Jasmon Drain ( Random House ) .
Linking these stories , set in the era of Reaganomics , is Tracy , a smart kid with a mother “ as emotional as the pages of a science textbook , ” who lives in the Stateway Gardens housing project , in Chicago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor , he can see half the city , and , closer by , the building where a family friend , who has “ been through the dismal crevices of the world , ” shares a place with her aunt , her children , and an ambitious sister .
The buildings—a utopian idea that ended in decay and demolition—bear witness to gnawing troubles and quiet revelations : “ the brittle taste of whiskey , ” a boy ’ s chin like “ the perfect petal of an orchid , ” “ late-night horn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soft music .
”

A Game of Birds and Wolves, by Simon Parkin (Little, Brown). In 1941, the British Navy faced a seemingly insurmountable threat from the German U-boat fleet, whose “wolfpack” tactics baffled Allied commanders. In this engaging history, Parkin tells how members of the Women’s Royal Naval Service, known as Wrens, helped develop a tactical training game that led to a decisive turning point in the war. They brought statistical and mathematical sophistication to their task, turning the floor of their control room into a giant game board and running countless reënactments and hypothetical scenarios. Parkin paints a vivid picture of training sessions in which seasoned sailors chafed at being tutored by “an inexperienced girl,” and captures each maneuver in the ensuing sea battles with zeal.
Dominion, by Tom Holland (Basic Books). This lively, capacious history of Christianity emphasizes the extent to which the religion still underpins Western liberal values. Holland argues that Christianity is to thank for our belief in the “intrinsic value” of human life and our respect for poverty and suffering. He traces even emphatically secular ideas, such as Marxism, to religious ethics, including brotherhood and equality, and emphasizes Christianity’s progressive aspects. St. Catherine of Siena’s rejection of an arranged marriage—she claimed that she was betrothed to Christ and, later, that her wedding ring was the foreskin from Christ’s circumcision—is seen not as an example of virginal virtue but in quasi-feminist terms, as establishing the idea that “consent, not coercion,” is the “proper foundation of a marriage.”
Interior Chinatown, by Charles Yu (Pantheon). The Asian immigrant experience is rendered as a series of stereotypical roles in a weekly television show in this inventive and entertaining novel. At a Chinese restaurant, the Golden Palace, workers live upstairs and double as extras. The protagonist, Willis Wu, starts off as “Background Oriental Male,” later rising to “Generic Asian Man” and “Special Guest Star,” on a trajectory that he hopes will take him to the pinnacle of “Kung Fu Guy.” Narrated in the second person, with lengthy passages presented in screenplay format, the novel incisively examines the Asian-American reality of “being perpetual foreigners” in the United States, a minority whose story “will never fit into Black and White.”
Stateway’s Garden, by Jasmon Drain (Random House). Linking these stories, set in the era of Reaganomics, is Tracy, a smart kid with a mother “as emotional as the pages of a science textbook,” who lives in the Stateway Gardens housing project, in Chicago. From his window, on the fourteenth floor, he can see half the city, and, closer by, the building where a family friend, who has “been through the dismal crevices of the world,” shares a place with her aunt, her children, and an ambitious sister. The buildings—a utopian idea that ended in decay and demolition—bear witness to gnawing troubles and quiet revelations: “the brittle taste of whiskey,” a boy’s chin like “the perfect petal of an orchid,” “late-night horn honks . . . as welcome as soft music.”


newyorker--2020-02-03--The Residents “Stumble Through” a Rock Opera

On a recent Thursday , as a band warmed up in a dark subterranean theatre at the Museum of Modern Art , a figure in a rubber mask stood in a doorway offstage , bathed in the red glow of an EXIT light .
This was the lead singer of the venerable and anonymous San Francisco art-rock collective the Residents , known for their iconic eyeball helmets , top hats , and tuxedos .
They were doing a “ stumble-through ” rehearsal of “ God in Three Persons , ” their 1988 rock-opera album , newly adapted for the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who watched from the back of the house .
It ’ s about Mr. X , an entrepreneur who becomes entwined with a pair of gender-fluid conjoined twins , who may or may not exist .
“ I feel that the twins aren ’ t real , ” Sanborn said .
“ These are the heavenly angels he wants to live with , but it ain ’ t gon na happen.
” The show would make its MOMA début that weekend ; tickets sold out quickly .
The Residents ’ eyeball masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t conducive to singing .
( “ The eyeball is hell , ” an associate said . )
Here the lead singer wore a bald-capped rubber mask with arched eyebrows and a bulbous nose , which , compared with the eyeball , the associate said , “ feels like air-conditioning.
” The mask was accessorized with sunglasses , a dinner jacket , a Residents eyeball T-shirt , and Under Armour sweatpants .
The musicians , including a trombonist and a Mellotron player , kicked into the overture , which featured clangorous music based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baby ’ s Love ) , ” by the Swingin ’ Medallions—the organ riff hints at the eerie garage rock of “ 96 Tears ” —and Sanborn ’ s video art was projected onscreen .
Onstage , Mr. X waltzed with a doppelgänger of himself ( Caitlin Hicks ) , and a video depicted him as a kind of televangelist , healing the afflicted in a carnival tent , groping the healed , and appearing in headlines about a scandalous grope-related fall from grace .
( “ I guess it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ band ’ s friend Homer Flynn said . )
The vocalist Laurie Amat , from the 1988 album , sang the credits as they appeared onscreen .
In their five-decade career , the Residents have released some fifty albums and made dozens of short films .
They helped pioneer the music video , before MTV and then on it ; inspired artists from Matt Groening to Devo ; and composed for “ Pee-wee ’ s Playhouse.
” MOMA ’ s collection includes their videos , a boxed set of recordings displayed inside a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The band became less anonymous a few years ago , when Hardy Fox revealed himself to be its chief composer ; he died , of cancer , in 2018 .
As “ God ” begins , Mr. X sings of how he first encounters the twins , who can see into souls and inspire the lonely masses .
Touched , he offers to manage them .
Sanborn , who met the Residents in the mid-seventies ( “ My friend said , ‘ They ’ re fucking with LaserDiscs ’ ” ) , chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a realm that displays the phantasmagoric workings of Mr. X ’ s mind .
Played by the angelic-looking Jiz Lee , “ a genderqueer porn star who ’ s worked with me before , ” as Sanborn put it , the twins are dressed in diaphanous , glowing-white costumes that evoke the Flying Nun .
Kaleidoscopic imagery of eyeballs , puppets , and torsos—and severed dogs ’ legs , and bloody hundred-dollar bills—floated onscreen as Mr. X performed the songs , talking-blues style , in rhymed couplets , evoking the reading aloud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book .
After a few songs , the director , Travis Chamberlain , a tidy younger man in a lavender polo shirt , said , “ Mr .
X needs water !
” A bottle of Poland Spring was procured .
Later , Mr. X stood on a chair and yelled about a liquid doughnut ; flames appeared behind him onscreen .
Chamberlain called out , “ Does anyone know what happened to our hula hoop ?
” The next scene involved a silver , pickle-shaped phallus flying through the air , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the twins had been separated , and Mr. X had spoken of pleasure , pain , illusion , and confusion .
They rehearsed their bows , and Amat , beaming ( “ I love this job !
” she said later ) , joined the masked performers onstage .
Fin .
Afterward , Mr. X removed his bald cap and rested .
Hicks shook out her neat dark bob .
A few notes .
Sanborn : “ If you move , you need to move with a certainty , not an oops—we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Chamberlain : “ Laurie , can you make sure your orgasm has a vocoder on it ?
” After a break , the musicians donned matte-black wolf masks .
It was time for the dress rehearsal .
♦

The Residents Illustration by João Fazenda
On a recent Thursday, as a band warmed up in a dark subterranean theatre at the Museum of Modern Art, a figure in a rubber mask stood in a doorway offstage, bathed in the red glow of an EXIT light. This was the lead singer of the venerable and anonymous San Francisco art-rock collective the Residents, known for their iconic eyeball helmets, top hats, and tuxedos. They were doing a “stumble-through” rehearsal of “God in Three Persons,” their 1988 rock-opera album, newly adapted for the stage by the video artist John Sanborn, who watched from the back of the house. It’s about Mr. X, an entrepreneur who becomes entwined with a pair of gender-fluid conjoined twins, who may or may not exist. “I feel that the twins aren’t real,” Sanborn said. “These are the heavenly angels he wants to live with, but it ain’t gonna happen.” The show would make its MOMA début that weekend; tickets sold out quickly.
The Residents’ eyeball masks, which encompass the head, aren’t conducive to singing. (“The eyeball is hell,” an associate said.) Here the lead singer wore a bald-capped rubber mask with arched eyebrows and a bulbous nose, which, compared with the eyeball, the associate said, “feels like air-conditioning.” The mask was accessorized with sunglasses, a dinner jacket, a Residents eyeball T-shirt, and Under Armour sweatpants.
The musicians, including a trombonist and a Mellotron player, kicked into the overture, which featured clangorous music based on “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” by the Swingin’ Medallions—the organ riff hints at the eerie garage rock of “96 Tears”—and Sanborn’s video art was projected onscreen. Onstage, Mr. X waltzed with a doppelgänger of himself (Caitlin Hicks), and a video depicted him as a kind of televangelist, healing the afflicted in a carnival tent, groping the healed, and appearing in headlines about a scandalous grope-related fall from grace. (“I guess it’s a bit of #MeToo,” the band’s friend Homer Flynn said.) The vocalist Laurie Amat, from the 1988 album, sang the credits as they appeared onscreen.
In their five-decade career, the Residents have released some fifty albums and made dozens of short films. They helped pioneer the music video, before MTV and then on it; inspired artists from Matt Groening to Devo; and composed for “Pee-wee’s Playhouse.” MOMA’s collection includes their videos, a boxed set of recordings displayed inside a refrigerator, and an eyeball helmet. The band became less anonymous a few years ago, when Hardy Fox revealed himself to be its chief composer; he died, of cancer, in 2018.
As “God” begins, Mr. X sings of how he first encounters the twins, who can see into souls and inspire the lonely masses. Touched, he offers to manage them. Sanborn, who met the Residents in the mid-seventies (“My friend said, ‘They’re fucking with LaserDiscs’ ”), chose to depict the twins only onscreen, a realm that displays the phantasmagoric workings of Mr. X’s mind. Played by the angelic-looking Jiz Lee, “a genderqueer porn star who’s worked with me before,” as Sanborn put it, the twins are dressed in diaphanous, glowing-white costumes that evoke the Flying Nun. Kaleidoscopic imagery of eyeballs, puppets, and torsos—and severed dogs’ legs, and bloody hundred-dollar bills—floated onscreen as Mr. X performed the songs, talking-blues style, in rhymed couplets, evoking the reading aloud of a gruesome, far-out children’s book.
After a few songs, the director, Travis Chamberlain, a tidy younger man in a lavender polo shirt, said, “Mr. X needs water!” A bottle of Poland Spring was procured. Later, Mr. X stood on a chair and yelled about a liquid doughnut; flames appeared behind him onscreen. Chamberlain called out, “Does anyone know what happened to our hula hoop?”
The next scene involved a silver, pickle-shaped phallus flying through the air, and stylized erotic wrestling. By the end, the twins had been separated, and Mr. X had spoken of pleasure, pain, illusion, and confusion. They rehearsed their bows, and Amat, beaming (“I love this job!” she said later), joined the masked performers onstage. Fin.
Afterward, Mr. X removed his bald cap and rested. Hicks shook out her neat dark bob. A few notes. Sanborn: “If you move, you need to move with a certainty, not an oops—we want the kind of chaos we want.” Chamberlain: “Laurie, can you make sure your orgasm has a vocoder on it?” After a break, the musicians donned matte-black wolf masks. It was time for the dress rehearsal. ♦


newyorker--2020-02-03--Malika Favre’s “Behind the Lens”

Malika Favre’s “Behind the Lens”

For the second consecutive year , the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences neglected to nominate a woman for its Best Director award .
With the Oscars nigh , Malika Favre ’ s latest cover is something of a corrective .
Favre , an artist based in London , talked to us recently about her favorite movies , her process , and the link between her work and the cinema .
You live in Europe .
Do you pay attention to the Oscars at all ?
What are some of the differences , to you , between American and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye on the Oscars from afar , as I do with the Cannes Film Festival .
I find awards a bit predictable .
As for European and American cinema , the societies are quite distinct , and that ’ s reflected in the films .
For me , cinema is about the human condition .
Some of it is universal and some of it is cultural .
When a movie transcends cultural differences , it becomes great cinema .
Do you see a connection between illustration and filmmaking ?
There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even stronger in my case because I approach illustration from a very cinematic angle .
I grew up without TV , and going to the movies was an exciting weekly occurrence .
It also had a major influence on the way I compose and light my images .
As a child , I used to watch the classics with my parents ; I was fascinated by film noir and old Hollywood films .
There ’ s a certain quality to black-and-white films—a particular grain and a deep contrast—that has shaped the way I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complex object , like a movie camera , into a few simple shapes ?
I research a lot of different models and try to find the components that are essential to an object , like a lens .
But I ’ m also looking for more evocative elements—a reel , for example—that can transport us to another time .
The cover is an homage to the films I loved as a child , though , this time , our heroine is behind the camera rather than in front of it .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ?
So far , “ Parasite , ” by Bong Joon-ho .
But , if I got to pick an Oscar winner from the past couple of years , it would have to be “ Moonlight.
” It ’ s such a beautiful and sensual film , and it makes great use of color and light .
See below for more New Yorker covers that celebrate cinema .

For the second consecutive year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences neglected to nominate a woman for its Best Director award. With the Oscars nigh, Malika Favre’s latest cover is something of a corrective. Favre, an artist based in London, talked to us recently about her favorite movies, her process, and the link between her work and the cinema.
You live in Europe. Do you pay attention to the Oscars at all? What are some of the differences, to you, between American and European film culture?
I keep an eye on the Oscars from afar, as I do with the Cannes Film Festival. I find awards a bit predictable. As for European and American cinema, the societies are quite distinct, and that’s reflected in the films. For me, cinema is about the human condition. Some of it is universal and some of it is cultural. When a movie transcends cultural differences, it becomes great cinema.
Do you see a connection between illustration and filmmaking?
There’s a strong connection, and it’s even stronger in my case because I approach illustration from a very cinematic angle. I grew up without TV, and going to the movies was an exciting weekly occurrence. It also had a major influence on the way I compose and light my images. As a child, I used to watch the classics with my parents; I was fascinated by film noir and old Hollywood films. There’s a certain quality to black-and-white films—a particular grain and a deep contrast—that has shaped the way I work.
Favre created these Criterion DVD covers for films by Almodovar in 2015 and 2017. Courtesy of Malika Favre
How do you strip down a complex object, like a movie camera, into a few simple shapes?
I research a lot of different models and try to find the components that are essential to an object, like a lens. But I’m also looking for more evocative elements—a reel, for example—that can transport us to another time. The cover is an homage to the films I loved as a child, though, this time, our heroine is behind the camera rather than in front of it.
What was the best movie you saw this year?
So far, “Parasite,” by Bong Joon-ho. But, if I got to pick an Oscar winner from the past couple of years, it would have to be “Moonlight.” It’s such a beautiful and sensual film, and it makes great use of color and light.
See below for more New Yorker covers that celebrate cinema.


newyorker--2020-02-03--The End of the Endless Iowa Campaign

The End of the Endless Iowa Campaign

The final month of the 2020 Iowa-caucus campaign began with the country on the brink of war with Iran .
It ended with an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate and Super Bowl watch parties .
“ The end always happens in real time , ” Sue Dvorsky , a former Iowa Democratic Party chair , told me at the beginning of January .
Because of the trial , three of the leading candidates spent the campaign ’ s final week flying back and forth between Iowa and Washington , D.C .
The remaining candidates all had to find a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had loomed over the race as a theoretical topic all along .
Dvorsky and her husband , Bob—a former state senator in Iowa—had endorsed Kamala Harris over the summer .
When we spoke , with Harris out of the race , I considered them part of a peculiar faction of Iowa Democrats , whose members I kept bumping into : politically active people who were saying they planned to go into the most consequential election in their party ’ s recent history undecided about whom to vote for .
Then , on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses from appearing during the impeachment trial , the Dvorskys announced that they were endorsing Elizabeth Warren .
“ Observing changing state of play on our side , and collapse of rule of law on the other , no one should stay on the bench , ” Sue Dvorsky texted me , after the endorsement news broke .
In this election cycle , Iowa saw more candidates campaigning across the state for a longer period of time than ever before .
John Delaney , a former congressman from Maryland , was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the summer of 2017 .
He dropped out on Friday , after two and a half years .
At times , this race seemed to span not just those years but the decades that preceded them , too .
On different occasions , the candidates debated the politics of desegregation and busing in the nineteen-seventies , the politics of mass incarceration in the nineteen-nineties , the Iraq War vote of 2002 , the bank bailout of 2008 , and the election of 2016 .
At the Democratic debate in Des Moines on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued over time itself .
Warren had deployed a talking point she ’ s been using recently—that she ’ s the only Democrat in the race who has beaten an incumbent Republican in the past thirty years—when Sanders jumped in to correct her .
“ Just to set the record straight , ” he said , “ I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress.
” “ And I said I was the only one who has beaten an incumbent Republican in thirty years , ” Warren said , after some more back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago is 1990 , as a matter of fact , ” Sanders said .
No one seems able to believe how quickly time is passing in the Trump era .
“ I just got sworn in a year ago—it feels like ten years , ” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently told a crowd in Cedar Falls , Iowa , where she was campaigning for Sanders .
“ But I just finished my first year in office.
” The crowd groaned .
That was only a year ago ?
“ It has been said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even past , ” Pete Buttigieg said on Wednesday , at an event in Indianola .
Yet time has passed even for the wunderkind candidate .
When this campaign season began , he was a thirty-six-year-old mayor of South Bend , Indiana .
Now he ’ s a thirty-eight-year-old former mayor .
On Friday , Andrew Yang was in the town of Grundy Center .
“ It ’ s been a long three years , I know , ” he said .
“ But it ’ s coming to an end.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidency demands urgency .
At Sanders and Warren events , people are told that the urgency requires big political changes .
At Joe Biden events , people are told that the urgency requires Joe Biden .
“ The fact is , the next President is going to inherit a country divided and a world in disarray , ” Biden said on Saturday , in North Liberty .
“ There ’ s going to be no time for on-the-job training.
” In the end , the stakes of the election have been clear since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , the Party can turn left or try again down the center .
Biden , Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar offer different faces of the center .
Sanders and Warren offer competing visions of the left .
The candidates who tried to walk a line between these two positions—Harris , Cory Booker , Beto O ’ Rourke , Kirsten Gillibrand—found themselves on treacherous political terrain and are all now out of the race .
The long primary made Buttigieg ’ s rise possible and has allowed Klobuchar to emerge in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate senator standing .
It allowed Yang and Tom Steyer a great degree of exposure , as each ran an offbeat campaign that attracted small but dedicated numbers of supporters and kept them engaged .
It allowed Michael Bloomberg enough time to join impossibly late and still be a major presence in the race .
And it allowed Warren time to move past a lacklustre start , and Biden time to clean up his delivery after a summer when he seemed to put his foot in his mouth every other day .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race is more or less where it started , with Biden and Sanders , the best-known candidates , looking strongest and everyone else looking for an edge , be it through organization , messaging , or money .
“ What do you think is going to happen ?
” reporters following the campaigns keep asking one another .
The polls remain both close and in flux .
Some aren ’ t even coming out at all .
On Saturday night , the biggest campaign news in the state was that the Des @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much-anticipated final poll of the race , after the Buttigieg campaign raised concerns about irregularities in how it was conducted .
In any event , large numbers of Iowans remain undecided , though one wonders how many will , like the Dvorskys , get off the bench in the closing days .
The quirks of the caucus process will lead to not one but three results being reported on Monday night : the first round of voting , the second round of voting , and the final delegate count derived from the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaigns seizing on whichever of those figures is most favorable to them and calling that the most important figure , no matter who wins .
In some ways , the work of the caucuses is already done : more than two dozen candidates came to the state seeking the nomination , and only a half-dozen or so will leave here with a reasonable chance to move on .
That may be as far as Iowa will take the Democratic Party .

The final month of the 2020 Iowa-caucus campaign began with the country on the brink of war with Iran. It ended with an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate and Super Bowl watch parties. “The end always happens in real time,” Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic Party chair, told me at the beginning of January. Because of the trial, three of the leading candidates spent the campaign’s final week flying back and forth between Iowa and Washington, D.C. The remaining candidates all had to find a way to talk about impeachment, which had loomed over the race as a theoretical topic all along. Dvorsky and her husband, Bob—a former state senator in Iowa—had endorsed Kamala Harris over the summer. When we spoke, with Harris out of the race, I considered them part of a peculiar faction of Iowa Democrats, whose members I kept bumping into: politically active people who were saying they planned to go into the most consequential election in their party’s recent history undecided about whom to vote for. Then, on Friday, as Senate Republicans voted to block witnesses from appearing during the impeachment trial, the Dvorskys announced that they were endorsing Elizabeth Warren. “Observing changing state of play on our side, and collapse of rule of law on the other, no one should stay on the bench,” Sue Dvorsky texted me, after the endorsement news broke.
In this election cycle, Iowa saw more candidates campaigning across the state for a longer period of time than ever before. John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland, was the first Democrat to officially campaign in Iowa, in the summer of 2017. He dropped out on Friday, after two and a half years. At times, this race seemed to span not just those years but the decades that preceded them, too. On different occasions, the candidates debated the politics of desegregation and busing in the nineteen-seventies, the politics of mass incarceration in the nineteen-nineties, the Iraq War vote of 2002, the bank bailout of 2008, and the election of 2016. At the Democratic debate in Des Moines on January 14th, Bernie Sanders and Warren argued over time itself. Warren had deployed a talking point she’s been using recently—that she’s the only Democrat in the race who has beaten an incumbent Republican in the past thirty years—when Sanders jumped in to correct her. “Just to set the record straight,” he said, “I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress.”
“When?” Warren responded.
“1990,” Sanders said.
“And I said I was the only one who has beaten an incumbent Republican in thirty years,” Warren said, after some more back and forth.
“Well, thirty years ago is 1990, as a matter of fact,” Sanders said.
No one seems able to believe how quickly time is passing in the Trump era. “I just got sworn in a year ago—it feels like ten years,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently told a crowd in Cedar Falls, Iowa, where she was campaigning for Sanders. “But I just finished my first year in office.” The crowd groaned. That was only a year ago? “It has been said that the past is never dead—it isn’t even past,” Pete Buttigieg said on Wednesday, at an event in Indianola. Yet time has passed even for the wunderkind candidate. When this campaign season began, he was a thirty-six-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Now he’s a thirty-eight-year-old former mayor. On Friday, Andrew Yang was in the town of Grundy Center. “It’s been a long three years, I know,” he said. “But it’s coming to an end.” Everyone agrees that Donald Trump’s Presidency demands urgency. At Sanders and Warren events, people are told that the urgency requires big political changes. At Joe Biden events, people are told that the urgency requires Joe Biden. “The fact is, the next President is going to inherit a country divided and a world in disarray,” Biden said on Saturday, in North Liberty. “There’s going to be no time for on-the-job training.”
In the end, the stakes of the election have been clear since the start: in the face of Trump, the Party can turn left or try again down the center. Biden, Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar offer different faces of the center. Sanders and Warren offer competing visions of the left. The candidates who tried to walk a line between these two positions—Harris, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Kirsten Gillibrand—found themselves on treacherous political terrain and are all now out of the race. The long primary made Buttigieg’s rise possible and has allowed Klobuchar to emerge in the past few weeks as a kind of last moderate senator standing. It allowed Yang and Tom Steyer a great degree of exposure, as each ran an offbeat campaign that attracted small but dedicated numbers of supporters and kept them engaged. It allowed Michael Bloomberg enough time to join impossibly late and still be a major presence in the race. And it allowed Warren time to move past a lacklustre start, and Biden time to clean up his delivery after a summer when he seemed to put his foot in his mouth every other day. But, as the Iowa campaigning ends, the race is more or less where it started, with Biden and Sanders, the best-known candidates, looking strongest and everyone else looking for an edge, be it through organization, messaging, or money.
“What do you think is going to happen?” reporters following the campaigns keep asking one another. The polls remain both close and in flux. Some aren’t even coming out at all. On Saturday night, the biggest campaign news in the state was that the Des Moines Register and CNN were scrapping a much-anticipated final poll of the race, after the Buttigieg campaign raised concerns about irregularities in how it was conducted. In any event, large numbers of Iowans remain undecided, though one wonders how many will, like the Dvorskys, get off the bench in the closing days. The quirks of the caucus process will lead to not one but three results being reported on Monday night: the first round of voting, the second round of voting, and the final delegate count derived from the result. It’s easy to imagine the campaigns seizing on whichever of those figures is most favorable to them and calling that the most important figure, no matter who wins. In some ways, the work of the caucuses is already done: more than two dozen candidates came to the state seeking the nomination, and only a half-dozen or so will leave here with a reasonable chance to move on. That may be as far as Iowa will take the Democratic Party.


The Mail

Brittany Smith ’ s case , as portrayed in Elizabeth Flock ’ s powerful article about abused women and the Stand Your Ground defense , demonstrates that , despite increased awareness of gender-based violence , more work must be done to address the public perception of the problem ( “ A Violent Defense , ” January 20th ) .
It may seem as if Smith ’ s case arose solely out of a familiar cycle of violence and impunity , and of women not reporting abuse .
Yet , as Flock makes clear , this seemingly simple cycle is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , owing to the burying of evidence .
This can involve hiding the abuser ’ s past behavior toward the survivor and others , and unfairly classifying injuries from abuse .
Flock ’ s ostensibly small observations reveal a different story than we may be accustomed to hearing .
In order to combat the prevailing view of violence against women , we must look more critically at isolated , inept police bureaucracies ; incompetent defense attorneys ; and a society that pathologizes and punishes victims of assault .
I hope Flock ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for justice for Smith but also to push for structural change , so that women are not unjustly imprisoned for defending themselves after being nearly killed .
In my U.S. history class , we discussed Virginia ’ s recent vote to approve the Equal Rights Amendment , which symbolically provided the final ratification needed to amend the Constitution .
I found this important historical moment jarring when considered alongside Flock ’ s report , which made me feel as though I were reading about a different United States altogether .
Alabama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith in every way .
After being raped , she was treated as a perpetrator .
Only her family and a few friends believed her account of what had occurred ; everyone else defended her violent attacker or simply refused to accept the evidence .
As a young woman in high school , I am told that I have more rights than the women who came before me .
Smith ’ s story , however , makes me think otherwise .
Louis Menand , in his informative piece on affirmative action , might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States has had something akin to affirmative action for white people ( Books , January 20th ) .
As was highlighted on the excellent podcast “ Seeing White , ” many of these measures have had to do with landownership .
In 1618 , the headright system enticed Europeans to settle in Virginia in exchange for land , and the Homestead Act of 1862 provided land in the West , benefitting whites disproportionately .
The story was not much different in the mid-twentieth century .
For example , in the nineteen-thirties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Housing Authority gave mortgage loans to homeowners in predominantly white communities ; it is estimated that less than two per cent of the loans went to African-Americans .
Menand closes his piece by asking if white liberals “ believe that there should be no sacrifice to make or price to pay for the systematic damage done to the lives of millions of American citizens and the men and women who are their ancestors.
” It is important for white people to understand that this damage happened in more ways than many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the writer ’ s name , address , and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail @ newyorker.com .
Letters may be edited for length and clarity , and may be published in any medium .
We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we can not reply to every letter .

Surviving Abuse
Brittany Smith’s case, as portrayed in Elizabeth Flock’s powerful article about abused women and the Stand Your Ground defense, demonstrates that, despite increased awareness of gender-based violence, more work must be done to address the public perception of the problem (“A Violent Defense,” January 20th). It may seem as if Smith’s case arose solely out of a familiar cycle of violence and impunity, and of women not reporting abuse. Yet, as Flock makes clear, this seemingly simple cycle is in fact a more complicated and nuanced phenomenon, owing to the burying of evidence. This can involve hiding the abuser’s past behavior toward the survivor and others, and unfairly classifying injuries from abuse. Flock’s ostensibly small observations reveal a different story than we may be accustomed to hearing.
In order to combat the prevailing view of violence against women, we must look more critically at isolated, inept police bureaucracies; incompetent defense attorneys; and a society that pathologizes and punishes victims of assault. I hope Flock’s article spurs people not only to rally for justice for Smith but also to push for structural change, so that women are not unjustly imprisoned for defending themselves after being nearly killed.
Kathleen R. Arnold
Chicago, Ill.
In my U.S. history class, we discussed Virginia’s recent vote to approve the Equal Rights Amendment, which symbolically provided the final ratification needed to amend the Constitution. I found this important historical moment jarring when considered alongside Flock’s report, which made me feel as though I were reading about a different United States altogether. Alabama’s law-enforcement and judicial systems have failed Brittany Smith in every way. After being raped, she was treated as a perpetrator. Only her family and a few friends believed her account of what had occurred; everyone else defended her violent attacker or simply refused to accept the evidence.
As a young woman in high school, I am told that I have more rights than the women who came before me. Smith’s story, however, makes me think otherwise.
Talia Winiarsky
New York City
Land of Opportunity?
Louis Menand, in his informative piece on affirmative action, might have added that, for centuries, the United States has had something akin to affirmative action for white people (Books, January 20th). As was highlighted on the excellent podcast “Seeing White,” many of these measures have had to do with landownership. In 1618, the headright system enticed Europeans to settle in Virginia in exchange for land, and the Homestead Act of 1862 provided land in the West, benefitting whites disproportionately. The story was not much different in the mid-twentieth century. For example, in the nineteen-thirties, forties, and fifties, the Federal Housing Authority gave mortgage loans to homeowners in predominantly white communities; it is estimated that less than two per cent of the loans went to African-Americans. Menand closes his piece by asking if white liberals “believe that there should be no sacrifice to make or price to pay for the systematic damage done to the lives of millions of American citizens and the men and women who are their ancestors.” It is important for white people to understand that this damage happened in more ways than many of us realize.
Harvey Teres
Syracuse, N.Y.
•
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.


newyorker--2020-02-03--Qassem Suleimani and How Nations Decide to Kill

When nation-states engage in the bloody calculus of killing , the boundary between whom they can target and whom they can ’ t is porous .
On January 3rd , the United States launched a drone strike that executed Major General Qassem Suleimani , the chief of Iran ’ s élite special-forces-and-intelligence unit , the Quds Force .
He was one of Iran ’ s most powerful leaders , with control over paramilitary operations across the Middle East , including a campaign of roadside bombings and other attacks by proxy forces that had killed at least six hundred Americans during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Convention of 1907 , killing a foreign government official outside wartime has generally been barred by the Law of Armed Conflict .
When the Trump Administration first announced the killing of Suleimani , officials declared that he had posed an “ imminent ” threat to Americans .
Then , under questioning and criticism , the Administration changed its explanation , citing Suleimani ’ s role in an ongoing “ series of attacks.
” Eventually , President Trump abandoned the attempt at justification , tweeting that it didn ’ t “ really matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrible past.
” The President ’ s dismissal of the question of legality betrayed a grim truth : a state ’ s decision to kill hinges less on definitive matters of law than on a set of highly malleable political , moral , and visceral considerations .
In the case of Suleimani , Trump ’ s order was the culmination of a grand strategic gamble to change the Middle East , and the opening of a potentially harrowing new front in the use of assassination .
The path to Suleimani ’ s killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal operation , more than a decade ago—on a winter night in February , 2008 , in an upscale residential district of Damascus , Syria .
The target was Imad Mughniyeh , a bearded , heavyset Lebanese engineer in his mid-forties , who could have passed for a college professor .
Mughniyeh was the architect of military strategy for Hezbollah , the armed force that dominates Lebanon and is supplied with weapons and money by Iran .
Mughniyeh had been blamed for some of the most spectacular terrorist strikes of the past quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly two hundred and fifty Americans in Beirut , in 1983 , and a suicide attack at the Israeli Embassy in Argentina , in 1992 , in which twenty-nine people died .
Robert Baer , a former C.I.A .
officer , said , of Mughniyeh , “ We hold him responsible for doing more damage to the C.I.A .
than anybody ever has—period.
” Mughniyeh was also known for his success in evading surveillance .
In 1985 , the C.I.A .
learned that Mughniyeh was passing through Paris , but when a French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hotel and burst through the window , they found only a startled Spanish family enjoying an afternoon snack .
“ He was an artist in keeping himself below the radar , ” Ehud Olmert , the former Israeli Prime Minister , said recently , at his office in Tel Aviv .
In 2006 , after a brief , fierce war with Hezbollah , Israel launched a mission to hunt down Mughniyeh before he could regroup for more fighting .
Olmert , the Prime Minister at the time , assigned the project to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Israel ’ s foreign-intelligence service .
Dagan , a squat sixty-one-year-old war veteran whose body carried shrapnel from old wounds , disdained the crude romance that hovered around his profession .
“ There is no joy in taking lives , ” he later told a reporter .
“ Anyone who enjoys it is a psychopath.
” Dagan had a personal stake in the Mughniyeh operation .
In 1982 , he was serving in southern Lebanon when a suicide bomber , allegedly recruited by Mughniyeh , reduced Israel ’ s military-intelligence post to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ One day , I will catch Mughniyeh , and when I do , God willing , I will finish him.
” ( Dagan died in 2016 . )
One of the most sensitive questions was where to carry out the killing if the opportunity arose .
An assassination on ill-chosen terrain could trigger a political backlash or another war ; an attack inside Lebanon might well force Hezbollah to retaliate .
In 2007 , Mossad caught a break .
A Mossad agent hidden among Hezbollah leaders got access to Mughniyeh ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track his movements .
Mughniyeh , Mossad learned , shuttled between two apartments near Damascus .
One belonged to his mistress ; he used the other , in the upscale Kfar Sousa neighborhood , for sensitive meetings .
The Kfar Sousa apartment would be an opportune site for assassination—or , as Mossad calls such operations , “ negative treatment.
” While Israeli operatives slipped into Damascus to prepare for the mission , Dagan enlisted the help of the C.I.A .
Unlike Israel , the U.S. had an embassy in Damascus , which housed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers .
At Dagan ’ s request , the C.I.A .
rented an apartment with a view of Mughniyeh ’ s meeting place , and Israeli operatives equipped it with small remote-controlled cameras , which fed live video back to the Mossad headquarters , in the Tel Aviv area .
Mossad formulated the plan , which called for hiding a bomb in a parked car .
Its technicians designed a so-called shaped explosive , which projects shrapnel in a conical five-metre “ kill zone.
” According to a former Israeli official , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinary shipments to the Embassy .
The C.I.A .
in Damascus gave the explosive to Mossad , whose agents installed it in the spare-tire holder of a Mitsubishi Pajero S.U.V .
But , at the last minute , President George W. Bush called a halt to the operation , concerned by warnings from C.I.A .
officers that the blast might kill civilians , especially students from a nearby girls ’ school .
In 1985 , the C.I.A .
had been blamed for a car bomb in Beirut that had killed more than eighty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilians .
The target , Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah , a popular ayatollah close to Mughniyeh , had escaped unharmed .
“ We have never quite gotten over the ’ 85 attempt on Fadlallah , ” Baer said .
“ It hit our reputation.
” Still , Olmert was intent on proceeding , and Mossad took him to a remote base in the desert and conducted a test explosion on a replica of the kill zone , using cardboard figures to represent Mughniyeh and schoolchildren passing by .
The results reassured him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to argue for the resumption of the operation .
Afterward , he refused to say what they had discussed , explaining that he was uncomfortable disclosing details even to Bush ’ s aides in the Oval Office .
“ We always used to go out to the Rose Garden and whisper to each other , ” he said .
“ So the answer to your question is not even in the records.
” But , according to a former Israeli official involved in the operation , Bush and Olmert agreed that “ only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ C.I.A .
sent its station chief in Israel to the Mossad headquarters to monitor the killing in real time .
Bush gave the operation a green light .
As a tool of statecraft , assassination has had a fluctuating reputation .
In contrast to plainly political murders—from Caesar to Lincoln to Trotsky—killing a person in the name of national defense rests on a moral and strategic case .
To its defenders , it is a lethal yet contained means of defusing a larger conflict .
Thomas More , the sixteenth-century theologian who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Church as a saint , contended that killing an “ enemy prince ” deserved “ great rewards ” if it saved the lives of innocents .
The Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius , who laid down early concepts of rightful conduct in war , believed it was “ permissible to kill an enemy in any place whatsoever.
” But , over time , political leaders came to reject the legitimacy of wantonly killing one another .
In 1789 , Thomas Jefferson , in a letter to James Madison , described “ assassination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ held in just horror in the 18th century .
”

By the end of Obama’s second term, after fifteen years of drone attacks, Americans no longer paid much attention to them. In polls, a large majority of Americans say they support targeted killings; in most other countries, the majority is firmly against them. According to the New America Foundation, in the past three years Trump has launched at least two hundred and sixty-two attacks: an increase, on an annual basis, of twenty per cent.
In the operations center at the Mossad headquarters, each officer in the Mughniyeh mission had a specific role. One kept track of Mughniyeh’s movements; another monitored the video feed, in order to confirm, in a split second, that the man in the kill zone was, in fact, Mughniyeh. Olmert visited the operations center to remind them that the relationship with the United States, Israel’s most valued ally, was on the line. They had to follow the agreement: kill Mughniyeh and no one else.
On the evening of February 12, 2008, as Mossad officers tracked the pings from Mughniyeh’s cell phone, they learned that he was heading toward the apartment in Kfar Sousa. They sent word to Damascus, where agents maneuvered the S.U.V. into position, parking in a spot that the target was guaranteed to pass on the way to his front door.
Images of the street appeared on a large television screen in the operations center. The officers watched Mughniyeh’s car pull up in his usual space. The plan called for detonating the bomb the instant that he walked into the kill zone. But Mughniyeh was not alone. He was accompanied by two other men, whom the spies recognized: Brigadier General Muhammad Suleiman, the Syrian military commander who had led that country’s construction of a nuclear reactor (until Israel destroyed it in air strikes), and Qassem Suleimani.
It was an unusually formidable gathering. The three leaders, from Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, were united by a shared conflict with Israel and the United States. Each had a different area of expertise: Mughniyeh was a technical specialist who had advanced the use of synchronized bombings to maximize casualties; Suleiman, the nuclear adviser, had also built Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons, including sarin gas; and Suleimani was an aspiring warrior-statesman, at ease among politicians and at work on building the Quds Force into an Iranian Foreign Legion.
“We just had to push a button and all three of them would disappear,” the former Israeli official recalled. “That was an opportunity given to us on a silver platter.” Olmert was on a flight home from a state visit to Berlin, and though Mossad operatives could have tried to contact him via satellite phone for permission to kill the other two men, they didn’t have much time. They also knew that the C.I.A., whose station chief was in the operations center, was authorized to help kill only Mughniyeh. In an instant, the three men slipped into the building, and the operatives settled in to wait for them to reëmerge. “They prayed that they would come back separately,” the former official said.
Cartoon by Roz Chast Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
After nearly an hour, the Mossad officers watching the video feed saw Suleimani and Suleiman leave the apartment building and drive away. Ten minutes later, Mughniyeh emerged alone. The commander of the operation detonated the explosive. On the screen, the figure of Mughniyeh disintegrated mid-stride—“cut into pieces,” an official who watched the feed recalled. “His body was thrown in the air—he was killed on the spot.” Nobody else was harmed.
Word reached the Israeli Prime Minister’s plane in the middle of the night. The cabin was crammed with journalists, so Olmert’s military assistant, General Meir Klifi-Amir, padded softly to Olmert’s seat and leaned in to whisper. “The world has lost one terrorist just now,” he said. Olmert responded, “God bless you.” When the plane landed, Olmert took the microphone of the plane’s public-address system, and said, cryptically, “I want to wish all of you a great day. This is a great day.”
By the next morning, Mughniyeh’s death had made the headlines across the Middle East. At eight o’clock, Dagan, the Mossad chief, walked into the Prime Minister’s office with the commander of the operation, carrying a disk with a video recording of the assassination. After watching it, Dagan also played a clip of Suleimani and Suleiman walking away. Olmert was deflated. Had they reached him, he told Dagan, “I would have ordered you to kill them all.”
In the days after Mughniyeh’s assassination, the U.S. and Israel made a point of avoiding any claim of responsibility. Silence after a killing prevents “unnecessary complications,” the former Israeli official said. “You can always send a plane, bomb a place. You want to do it in a way that will reduce the option of retaliation, or the eruption of large-scale hostilities.” A few days after the bombing, Mike McConnell, the director of National Intelligence, appeared on Fox News. The host, Chris Wallace, asked him whether America had been involved in the Mughniyeh killing. “No,” McConnell said. “It may have been Syria. We don’t know yet, and we’re trying to sort that out.”
In the intelligence business, funerals can provide a feast of information on the internal politics of an enemy. Analysts keep track of who sends the most extravagant flower arrangements, which up-and-comers get prime seats, and what top leaders say, and don’t say, about the need for escalation. At Mughniyeh’s funeral, in the suburbs of Beirut, Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah chief, delivered a eulogy by video, full of the usual threats—“Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open”—but the details of the event were reassuring. Thousands of citizens turned out, but Syrian officials stayed away. They suspected that Israel was behind the killing, but President Bashar al-Assad didn’t want to face political pressure to retaliate. In intercepted communications, Syrian leaders were overheard stoking rumors that Mughniyeh died in an internal feud. “Assad knew exactly who did it,” the former Israeli official said. “But, since he didn’t want to get involved in any major confrontation, he had to give an excuse.” The agent who had given Mossad access to Mughniyeh’s phone was smuggled out of Lebanon and resettled in another country. Olmert told Mossad officers that, in a follow-up conversation with Bush, the two men had commiserated over the missed opportunity. “What a pity,” Bush said. “So sad they were not taken out at the same time.”
In the Presidential palace in Damascus, Muhammad Suleiman had his office on the same floor as President Assad’s. Within weeks of Mughniyeh’s death, an operation to assassinate Suleiman was ready. In this case, Israeli assassins would act alone. (Unlike the U.S., Israel did not consider Syrian officials off limits for targeted killings.) The task was assigned to Shayetet 13, a special-forces unit of the Israeli Navy. The plan called for the killing of Suleiman at his holiday retreat, overlooking the beaches of Tartus, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast. In the course of the summer, Israeli operatives set up hidden video cameras, which beamed live footage of the home back to a command post in Tel Aviv. Suleiman liked to spend summer evenings entertaining on a large terrace with a view of the sea.
On the evening of August 1, 2008, Israeli intelligence learned that Suleiman was on the road to Tartus. In Tel Aviv, commanders put the assassination plan into action. In the darkness, several kilometres off the coast, an Israeli submarine broke the surface of the water. Six snipers and a commander disembarked and boarded a semi-submersible boat. When they reached the shore, they scattered into preplanned positions, hiding, at a distance, on either side of the terrace. Suleiman, who had a broad forehead and a heavy gray mustache, was sitting next to his wife, amid a large group of guests. Commanders in Tel Aviv watched the scene on television monitors. The snipers, with silenced rifles, fired simultaneously. “Six bullets penetrated his heart and head, three from each side,” the former Israeli official said. “His head moved forward, to one side, and then to the other side. Suddenly, there was a spray pouring out of his head, from both sides, on the table and on the floor.” His wife was unharmed. Guests recoiled and cried out in terror.
The snipers and the commander retreated to the boat, headed back to the submarine, and returned to an Israeli port. Later that evening, Israeli intelligence intercepted a conversation between Suleiman’s frenzied aides and President Assad about the killing. “The reaction of Assad was very interesting,” the former Israeli official said. “You’re talking about the closest person to him on the most sensitive matters of the country. And he gets a telephone call at midnight that tells him that he was assassinated. . . . And Assad’s immediate response was ‘Don’t panic. Put him in a plastic bag. Go outside of Tartus and bury him in a grave without any identifying signs.’ ” He went on, “I was impressed with his coolness. There was no funeral, no event. Nothing. They never admitted that he was killed. He just disappeared.”
Israel would occasionally remind Assad that he was never out of reach. F-16s had roared low over his summer palace in Latakia, and, the former Israeli official said, Israeli intelligence delivered electronic messages directly to him. In the days that followed Suleiman’s death, Israel said nothing as, all the while, the assassinations bred a sense of helplessness among those who might be next on the list. Assad’s security advisers selected a secret refuge for him, but, in intercepted communications, he was heard belittling the plan with weary resignation: “If the Israelis want, they will come to that place. Why waste the money, and why make the effort?”
In the decision to kill, notoriety can cut both ways: there is little benefit to targeting militants with limited power, yet the deaths of high-profile opponents can have deep repercussions. Born in 1957 in Kerman Province, in southeastern Iran, Qassem Suleimani was a farmer’s son who spent most of his time at the gym and at the mosque. He worked at the local water department, and, in the nineteen-eighties, during the war between Iran and Iraq, he was tasked with getting water delivered to the front lines. He fulfilled his duties with courage and climbed the ranks. But, to the C.I.A. analysts who kept track of rising officers in the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Suleimani did not stand out. Around 1998, he became head of its expeditionary unit, the Quds Force. Danny Yatom, a former head of Mossad, said, “We started to collect information about him.”
In Israel, the list of potential assassination targets is assembled from multiple sources. Occasionally, the former Israeli official said, a Prime Minister will take note of media coverage and ask Mossad, “What about him? Are we capable of doing something to him? Can we reach out to him?” More often, the heads of the nation’s security services propose names, which must then be approved by the Prime Minister. Targets are ranked in order of importance, based on the urgency of the threat, the difficulty of the killing, and the potential costs and benefits. Though Israeli intelligence has a formidable reputation, its resources are limited by American standards, and it can’t “cover the world,” a C.I.A. veteran said. “They cover the shark closest to the boat.”
In the years after the Mughniyeh killing, Mossad worried more about Iran’s nuclear program than about Suleimani’s paramilitary activities. Suleimani was of special concern to U.S. forces; his militias were known for using an especially devastating explosive, which was designed to pierce the exterior of armored vehicles. During the most intense period of fighting of the Iraq War, starting in 2007, Suleimani avoided setting foot in Iraq; he appeared to think that the Americans might kill him. In fact, Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national-security adviser, said, “I’m not aware of any contemplation of getting Suleimani.” On occasion, Mossad officers brought up Suleimani with American counterparts, according to Stephen Slick, a former C.I.A. station chief in Tel Aviv. “They would just sort of drive it by and see if they got a rise out of anybody,” he said.


newyorker--2020-02-03--Etymology of Some Common Typos

Etymology of Some Common Typos

The word “ typo ” is actually a misnomer .
Derived from a phrase that denotes error , it suggests that the typist has made a mistake .
In fact , what we call typos are more accurately described as variants .
Take “ anmd , ” which often appears when we think we have typed the conjunction “ and.
” In some parts of the Anglophobe world , both versions of this word— “ and ” and “ anmd ” ( or “ and ” anmd “ anmd ” ) —are acceptable , just as the mistyped “ trhe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or trhe ) more conventional article “ the.
” Of course , there are exceptions , or erxceptions , such as the word “ erxceptions ” itself , which is also accepted but considered impolite .
“ Anmd ” and “ trhe , ” unlike “ erxception , ” both derive from ancient oral tradition .
In Old , Old Norse , the stray “ m ” and “ r ” are believed to have corrupted “ and ” and “ the ” in common speech through the negligence or haste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When monks transcribed these words directly from the mouths of the speakers , they became grossed out , but dutifully included the variants on their stain-spattered vellum manuscripts , and , as such , these so-called typos have been handed down .
Variants sometimes occur as typographic representations of consonants that seem to have migrated sideways in the mouth .
This is the case with variants containing the letter “ p , ” such as “ yopu ” ( “ you ” ) .
As Indo-European peoples moved laterally in their wanderings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , the plosive consonants did something similar on the tongue .
Thus , we may be typing along and see an unfamiliar sentence , such as “ I will be goping home , ” appear on the screen .
Unconsciously , we have typed exactly what an ancient Indo-European person would have said .
The sentence “ Dopn ’ t dop that ” ( in everyday modern English , “ Don ’ t do that ” ) has been seen spelled out in finger paint on the walls of the limestone caves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupation dates to more than 30000 B.C.E .
Moreover , in certain contexts the second-person singular “ yopu ” appears to have been not a pronoun but the proper name of a particular cave individual , and ideally should be capitalized , as “ Yopu.
” What do we know of this Yopu , or of any of the Indo-Europeans ?
Here is where our “ typos ” may be trying to tell us something .
When these ancient humans used aspirated consonants , such as “ h ” ( or the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that they often snuck in a seemingly gratuitous “ j , ” as in “ whjat ” ( “ what ” ) , “ hjere ” ( “ here ” ) , or “ hjog ” ( “ hog ” ) .
An ancient Indo-European sentence such as “ Whjat is thjat hjog doping hjere ?
” makes sense only if we posit that the speaker was trying to come off as Swedish .
Why he or she would want to do that is another question , but it does shed light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permeated the society .
The faster we type , the more intriguing this window into the distant past becomes .
“ Trhe quiclk brownb fsocx jumptde over rtha laxy dopg , ” a typing-practice sentence that all of us learned in high school , includes , in this typed-super-fast version , at least eight different proto-language families struggling to be reborn .
Modern humans who type “ fsocx ” for “ fox ” likely have some Neanderthal DNA .
Perhaps the well-known practice sentence describes an encounter that occurred regularly between Ice Age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of canine skeletons found in conjunction with Neanderthal shell middens indicate high concentrations of gene pairings often associated with laziness—for what that ’ s worth .
The word “ jumptde ” is an elongated verb form of pre-Celtic origin , later common in Turkic languages , which fell out of favor when it became kind of a pain .
And , remarkably , “ over ” is one of those rare words that is exactly the same in every language , extinct or living , around the world .
Nopw we fast-foprward top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opf Autopcoprrect .
( Or , “ Nope we fast-foppish tomorrow trh technophobe era , amid tre influence old Autocorrect.
” ) Today , corrections that used to take weeks happen automatically .
But here a darker process seems to be goping on .
When we set out to create a text message , the echoes of lost languages , and all connections to our shared human past , are erased .
Text a harmless sentence like “ I ’ m here , ready to help , ” and whjat may pop up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to Hal.
” Huh ?
Who is this “ Hal ” ?
We will never know , nor will the text ’ s no doubt baffled recipient .
If , instead of “ Hal , ” the name supplied had been “ Hjal , ” we would have met another shadowy figure from the mists of time , someone who might conceivably have known Yopu .
But , thanks to Autocorrect , poor Hjal is long forgotten .
Type in his name , and it will be corrected to “ Hal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we are the poorer for the loss .
♦

The word “typo” is actually a misnomer. Derived from a phrase that denotes error, it suggests that the typist has made a mistake. In fact, what we call typos are more accurately described as variants. Take “anmd,” which often appears when we think we have typed the conjunction “and.” In some parts of the Anglophobe world, both versions of this word—“and” and “anmd” (or “and” anmd “anmd”)—are acceptable, just as the mistyped “trhe” may be used interchangeably with the (or trhe) more conventional article “the.” Of course, there are exceptions, or erxceptions, such as the word “erxceptions” itself, which is also accepted but considered impolite.
“Anmd” and “trhe,” unlike “erxception,” both derive from ancient oral tradition. In Old, Old Norse, the stray “m” and “r” are believed to have corrupted “and” and “the” in common speech through the negligence or haste of slob members of the ur-Norse community. When monks transcribed these words directly from the mouths of the speakers, they became grossed out, but dutifully included the variants on their stain-spattered vellum manuscripts, and, as such, these so-called typos have been handed down.
Variants sometimes occur as typographic representations of consonants that seem to have migrated sideways in the mouth. This is the case with variants containing the letter “p,” such as “yopu” (“you”). As Indo-European peoples moved laterally in their wanderings, west to east (or vice versa), the plosive consonants did something similar on the tongue. Thus, we may be typing along and see an unfamiliar sentence, such as “I will be goping home,” appear on the screen. Unconsciously, we have typed exactly what an ancient Indo-European person would have said. The sentence “Dopn’t dop that” (in everyday modern English, “Don’t do that”) has been seen spelled out in finger paint on the walls of the limestone caves of Lascaux, France, where human occupation dates to more than 30000 B.C.E. Moreover, in certain contexts the second-person singular “yopu” appears to have been not a pronoun but the proper name of a particular cave individual, and ideally should be capitalized, as “Yopu.”
What do we know of this Yopu, or of any of the Indo-Europeans? Here is where our “typos” may be trying to tell us something. When these ancient humans used aspirated consonants, such as “h” (or the “wh” sound), our mistypings show that they often snuck in a seemingly gratuitous “j,” as in “whjat” (“what”), “hjere” (“here”), or “hjog” (“hog”). An ancient Indo-European sentence such as “Whjat is thjat hjog doping hjere?” makes sense only if we posit that the speaker was trying to come off as Swedish. Why he or she would want to do that is another question, but it does shed light on a weird kind of insecurity that permeated the society. The faster we type, the more intriguing this window into the distant past becomes. “Trhe quiclk brownb fsocx jumptde over rtha laxy dopg,” a typing-practice sentence that all of us learned in high school, includes, in this typed-super-fast version, at least eight different proto-language families struggling to be reborn.
Modern humans who type “fsocx” for “fox” likely have some Neanderthal DNA. Perhaps the well-known practice sentence describes an encounter that occurred regularly between Ice Age foxes and Neanderthal dogs. Bone-density studies of canine skeletons found in conjunction with Neanderthal shell middens indicate high concentrations of gene pairings often associated with laziness—for what that’s worth. The word “jumptde” is an elongated verb form of pre-Celtic origin, later common in Turkic languages, which fell out of favor when it became kind of a pain. And, remarkably, “over” is one of those rare words which are exactly the same in every language, extinct or living, around the world.
Nopw we fast-foprward top trhe technop era, amnd trhe influence opf Autopcoprrect. (Or, “Nope we fast-foppish tomorrow trh technophobe era, amid tre influence old Autocorrect.”) Today, corrections that used to take weeks happen automatically. But here a darker process seems to be goping on. When we set out to create a text message, the echoes of lost languages, and all connections to our shared human past, are erased. Text a harmless sentence like “I’m here, ready to help,” and whjat may pop up is “I’m here, ready to Hal.” Huh? Who is this “Hal”? We will never know, nor will the text’s no doubt baffled recipient. If, instead of “Hal,” the name supplied had been “Hjal,” we would have met another shadowy figure from the mists of time, someone who might conceivably have known Yopu. But, thanks to Autocorrect, poor Hjal is long forgotten. Type in his name, and it will be corrected to “Hal,” just another ordinary present-day guy, and we are the poorer for the loss. ♦


newyorker--2020-02-03--“I Trust the Wind and Don’t Know Why,” by Wyn Cooper

I am not the girl in the picture .
I am not the smell of hyacinths .
I might be @ @ @ @ @ off the record .
I am not a view from the island , not the @ @ @ @ @ not parasols scattered on sand .
I am closed for the season .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ look out on rain .
I am rain that rains harder .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ not hands on a clock .
I don ’ t spring forward .
Can not @ @ @ @ @ yellow caution tape strung from pole to pole : Police line do not cross .
@ @ @ @ @ nothing in it , just spots on the sun .
Then the long twilight .
@ @ @ @ @ .

Audio: Read by the author.
I am not the girl in the picture.
I am not the smell of hyacinths.
I might be the boy.
I am off the record.
I am not a view from the island,
not the sound of waves breaking,
not parasols scattered on sand.
I am closed for the season.
I’m fingerprints on windows
that look out on rain.
I am rain that rains harder.
I’m not the new fashion, not
hands on a clock. I don’t spring
forward. Cannot turn back.
I am yellow caution tape
strung from pole to pole:
Police line do not cross.
I see the sky but nothing in it,
just spots on the sun.
Then the long twilight.
Then the crackle of stars.


Cartoon Caption Contest

Each week , we provide a cartoon in need of a caption .
You , the reader , submit your @ @ @ @ @ three finalists , and you vote for your favorite .
Anyone age thirteen or older @ @ @ @ @ To read the complete rules , click here .

Each week, we provide a cartoon in need of a caption. You, the reader, submit your caption here, we choose three finalists, and you vote for your favorite. Anyone age thirteen or older can enter or vote. To read the complete rules, click here.
Jeremy Nguyen Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop


newyorker--2020-02-02--In South Carolina, Dave Chappelle Tells Jokes for Andrew Yang

Four years ago , Jonathan Hetterly , a forty-three-year-old Asian-American mental-health counsellor , attended a Donald Trump rally as a joke .
He printed “ Asians for Trump ” shirts and signs that read “ Give us a call , we know how to build walls.
” The event was not as funny as he ’ d hoped .
He was struck by the tone of menace , despite the presence of children .
The overwhelmingly white crowd shouted chants of “ Bill ’ s a rapist ” and “ Lock her up.
” A campaign volunteer told him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infiltrating our borders , and we need Trump to protect us.
” Later , Hetterly wrote , “ I ’ m ready to focus on what unites us as a nation , ” adding , “ laughter makes the world better.
” He told me recently , “ I really had no idea he was going to win.
” I met Hetterly on Wednesday night outside of the Township Auditorium , in Columbia , South Carolina , where Dave Chappelle was about to perform in support of the Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m kind of wearing a little bit of my political ideology on my sleeve this time , ” he said , pointing to his T-shirt , which , in a play on the title of a White Stripes song , read “ ICKY TRUMP.
” ( Hetterly purchased it at Third Man Records , Jack White ’ s store in Nashville . )
Chappelle ’ s journey to supporting Yang had some echoes of his own , Hetterly suggested .
In 2016 , after Trump ’ s victory , Chappelle went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Hetterly put it , “ just sort of mocked the white outrage about Trump being elected.
” “ I haven ’ t seen white people this mad since the O.J .
verdict , ” Chappelle said , adding , “ I ’ m wishing Donald Trump luck , and I ’ m going to give him a chance.
” Hetterly suspected that Chappelle regretted not being more politically active before the election and that his recent campaigning for Yang was a result .
Chappelle endorsed Yang in mid-January and , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Yang “ inspiring.
” On Wednesday evening , Chappelle phoned voters in South Carolina on Yang ’ s behalf .
“ My name is Dave Chappelle .
I ’ m a world-famous comedian , ” he told one answerer , after a few minutes of scripted phone-banking in Columbia .
“ But , today , I ’ m just rolling some phone calls and trying to garner support .
We got a big primary coming up.
” He ended the call , “ All right .
Wu-Tang.
” Chappelle reportedly plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
That night , more than two thousand people gathered at the auditorium in Columbia to see him perform .
Outside , members of the # YangGang wore shirts and hats that read “ Math ” —an acronym for “ Make America Think Harder ” —and held signs that read “ Humanity First.
” Volunteers with various nonprofits registered people to vote .
Walking around the grounds , I met supporters not only of Yang but of Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Michael Bloomberg , Tom Steyer , Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a remarkably diverse crowd in just about every way .
“ It ’ s America , ” Hetterly said .
A middle-aged white woman named Jane , who lives in Columbia , was trying to sell a few extra tickets that she ’ d mistakenly purchased .
On her car was a bumper sticker that read “ THE DEMOCRAT 2020.
” Jane clarified , as she waved her tickets in the air , “ Bernie ’ s not a Democrat.
” She volunteered for Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign in 2016 , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ more of a Bloomberg person.
” Steyer , Bloomberg ’ s fellow-billionaire , who has invested heavily in South Carolina , was also on her mind .
“ I don ’ t get a lot of mail these days , ” she said , smiling , “ but I can always count on mail from Tom Steyer.
” Two friends in their early thirties who ’ d driven down from Charlotte , Xavier Jimenez , an I.T .
worker , and Michael Zytkow , who works at a gaming nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a Steyer yard sign on the way from the car to the auditorium .
“ I met Steyer like two weeks ago , ” Zytkow said .
“ My friend works for his campaign.
” Zytkow ranked Steyer highly among the candidates , but Yang was his top choice .
Jimenez said , “ I mostly came for Chappelle.
” A man who works in the boating industry said , “ I didn ’ t even know it was politics until my buddy just told me.
” He had come to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blogger .
They were both in their forties , both white , and both supported Trump .
They had seen Chappelle the last time he was in town , too , and they weren ’ t upset to learn that the event was a fund-raiser for Yang .
“ I ’ m all about somebody raising money for something they believe in , ” the man said .
“ Some of our best friends in the world are hard-core liberals.
” He didn ’ t mind ridicule directed at Trump , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who can ’ t pick on the guy ?
” His wife said , “ He ’ s a buffoon , at times.
” Could Chappelle persuade them to support Yang instead ?
“ We ’ re always open-minded , ” the man said , “ but probably not.
” Dave Rogers , a retired , seventy-one-year-old African-American , took in the crowd as he waited for his wife to arrive .
As far as the Democratic candidates go , he said , “ I ’ m still debating on who I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not even sure I ’ m gon na vote .
They ’ ve stole two elections from us in less than twenty years.
” He added , “ The last time I tried to vote , the woman accused me of trying to vote twice .
Hell , I don ’ t need to vote twice !
The vote don ’ t count , anyway , ” he continued , “ when it comes to Presidential elections.
” He was referring to the Electoral College .
Whom did Rogers like ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s name ?
Pocahontas ?
” He meant Warren .
“ I like what she ’ s saying .
I don ’ t know too much about Tom , but I like what he ’ s saying , too.
” The Steyer campaign had come by his home earlier that day .
Rogers had let his wife handle it .
“ Was it Aristotle or Plato ?
One of them was talking about politics .
He said , ‘ Stay away from the beans.
’ I said , ‘ I ’ ll remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would own up to his 2016 “ S.N.L.
” monologue .
“ I ’ m saying , man , you need to stay away from the beans .
You don ’ t know how many people you influence by some of the stuff you say.
” Humor has played a distinctive role in Yang ’ s unlikely campaign from the start .
His first breakout moment was probably his appearance , a year ago , on an enormously popular podcast hosted by Joe Rogan , a standup comedian who commands the adoration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of them white , and many of whom chafe at political correctness .
On the stump , Yang often jokes about Asian-American stereotypes , saying that “ the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.
” When the comedian Shane Gillis was fired from “ S.N.L.
, ” in September , after a clip surfaced in which he made derogatory remarks about Asians , Yang got a lot of attention for defending him .
“ Shane , ” he tweeted , “ I prefer comedy that makes people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots .
But I ’ m happy to sit down and talk with you if you ’ d like.
” ( Gillis has said that he did speak with Yang , and that since then he has texted him on occasion , to tell Yang , for example , that he “ crushed it ” in a debate . )

Four years ago, Jonathan Hetterly, a forty-three-year-old Asian-American mental-health counsellor, attended a Donald Trump rally as a joke. He printed “Asians for Trump” shirts and signs that read “Give us a call, we know how to build walls.” The event was not as funny as he’d hoped. He was struck by the tone of menace, despite the presence of children. The overwhelmingly white crowd shouted chants of “Bill’s a rapist” and “Lock her up.” A campaign volunteer told him, “Three hundred thousand undocumented immigrants are infiltrating our borders, and we need Trump to protect us.” Later, Hetterly wrote, “I’m ready to focus on what unites us as a nation,” adding, “laughter makes the world better.” He told me recently, “I really had no idea he was going to win.”
I met Hetterly on Wednesday night outside of the Township Auditorium, in Columbia, South Carolina, where Dave Chappelle was about to perform in support of the Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Hetterly supports Yang unironically. “I’m kind of wearing a little bit of my political ideology on my sleeve this time,” he said, pointing to his T-shirt, which, in a play on the title of a White Stripes song, read “ICKY TRUMP.” (Hetterly purchased it at Third Man Records, Jack White’s store in Nashville.) Chappelle’s journey to supporting Yang had some echoes of his own, Hetterly suggested. In 2016, after Trump’s victory, Chappelle went on “Saturday Night Live” and, as Hetterly put it, “just sort of mocked the white outrage about Trump being elected.” “I haven’t seen white people this mad since the O.J. verdict,” Chappelle said, adding, “I’m wishing Donald Trump luck, and I’m going to give him a chance.” Hetterly suspected that Chappelle regretted not being more politically active before the election and that his recent campaigning for Yang was a result. Chappelle endorsed Yang in mid-January and, before a recent performance, in Iowa, called Yang “inspiring.”
On Wednesday evening, Chappelle phoned voters in South Carolina on Yang’s behalf. “My name is Dave Chappelle. I’m a world-famous comedian,” he told one answerer, after a few minutes of scripted phone-banking in Columbia. “But, today, I’m just rolling some phone calls and trying to garner support. We got a big primary coming up.” He ended the call, “All right. Wu-Tang.” Chappelle reportedly plans to go door to door for Yang, as well.
That night, more than two thousand people gathered at the auditorium in Columbia to see him perform. Outside, members of the #YangGang wore shirts and hats that read “Math”—an acronym for “Make America Think Harder”—and held signs that read “Humanity First.” Volunteers with various nonprofits registered people to vote. Walking around the grounds, I met supporters not only of Yang but of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. It was a remarkably diverse crowd in just about every way. “It’s America,” Hetterly said.
A middle-aged white woman named Jane, who lives in Columbia, was trying to sell a few extra tickets that she’d mistakenly purchased. On her car was a bumper sticker that read “THE DEMOCRAT 2020.” Jane clarified, as she waved her tickets in the air, “Bernie’s not a Democrat.” She volunteered for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, she said; this time around, she’s “more of a Bloomberg person.” Steyer, Bloomberg’s fellow-billionaire, who has invested heavily in South Carolina, was also on her mind. “I don’t get a lot of mail these days,” she said, smiling, “but I can always count on mail from Tom Steyer.”
Two friends in their early thirties who’d driven down from Charlotte, Xavier Jimenez, an I.T. worker, and Michael Zytkow, who works at a gaming nonprofit, told me that they had stepped over a Steyer yard sign on the way from the car to the auditorium. “I met Steyer like two weeks ago,” Zytkow said. “My friend works for his campaign.” Zytkow ranked Steyer highly among the candidates, but Yang was his top choice. Jimenez said, “I mostly came for Chappelle.”
A man who works in the boating industry said, “I didn’t even know it was politics until my buddy just told me.” He had come to the show with his wife, a fashion blogger. They were both in their forties, both white, and both supported Trump. They had seen Chappelle the last time he was in town, too, and they weren’t upset to learn that the event was a fund-raiser for Yang. “I’m all about somebody raising money for something they believe in,” the man said. “Some of our best friends in the world are hard-core liberals.” He didn’t mind ridicule directed at Trump, he said. “It’s hilarious. Who can’t pick on the guy?” His wife said, “He’s a buffoon, at times.” Could Chappelle persuade them to support Yang instead? “We’re always open-minded,” the man said, “but probably not.”
Dave Rogers, a retired, seventy-one-year-old African-American, took in the crowd as he waited for his wife to arrive. As far as the Democratic candidates go, he said, “I’m still debating on who I’m gonna deal with. I’m not even sure I’m gonna vote. They’ve stole two elections from us in less than twenty years.” He added, “The last time I tried to vote, the woman accused me of trying to vote twice. Hell, I don’t need to vote twice! The vote don’t count, anyway,” he continued, “when it comes to Presidential elections.” He was referring to the Electoral College. Whom did Rogers like? “What’s the girl’s name? Pocahontas?” He meant Warren. “I like what she’s saying. I don’t know too much about Tom, but I like what he’s saying, too.” The Steyer campaign had come by his home earlier that day. Rogers had let his wife handle it. “Was it Aristotle or Plato? One of them was talking about politics. He said, ‘Stay away from the beans.’ I said, ‘I’ll remember that.’ ” Rogers hoped that Chappelle would own up to his 2016 “S.N.L.” monologue. “I’m saying, man, you need to stay away from the beans. You don’t know how many people you influence by some of the stuff you say.”
Humor has played a distinctive role in Yang’s unlikely campaign from the start. His first breakout moment was probably his appearance, a year ago, on an enormously popular podcast hosted by Joe Rogan, a standup comedian who commands the adoration of legions of fans—most of them men, most of them white, and many of whom chafe at political correctness. On the stump, Yang often jokes about Asian-American stereotypes, saying that “the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.” When the comedian Shane Gillis was fired from “S.N.L.,” in September, after a clip surfaced in which he made derogatory remarks about Asians, Yang got a lot of attention for defending him. “Shane,” he tweeted, “I prefer comedy that makes people think and doesn’t take cheap shots. But I’m happy to sit down and talk with you if you’d like.” (Gillis has said that he did speak with Yang, and that since then he has texted him on occasion, to tell Yang, for example, that he “crushed it” in a debate.)
It seems fitting, then, that Chappelle, who has been criticized for telling transphobic and homophobic jokes, would warm to Yang—though Chappelle has said that Yang’s policies are the reason for his endorsement. On Wednesday, members of the audience, including press, placed their phones and recording devices in locked pouches as they entered the auditorium. Then, just before Chappelle’s set began, a man told the half-dozen reporters near the stage, “Put your notebooks away.” He added, “No notes. No note-taking. I’m only telling you this once.” Perhaps the campaign or the comedian—or both—was concerned that an offensive joke would get written down and end up in a headline. None of the material was surprising, in any case: in his hour-long set, Chappelle defended his jokes about gay people (“I have no problem with gay people, but these millennial gays are getting on my fucking nerves”) and trans people (“I never said that trans people were wrong and I never said that trans people were bad. . . . I just think it’s funny”), and told many jokes at the expense of many other groups. He also mocked transphobia, finishing one bit with the memorable line, “No American should have to present a birth certificate to take a shit in Walmart in Greensboro,” a reference to North Carolina’s infamous bathroom bill.
Chappelle didn’t dwell on politics or his membership in the “Yang Tang Clan,” as he called it, though he did say that he thought Yang “has some good ideas.” He also noted that white conservatives like his comedy, and that he found this somewhat discomforting. President Trump, he went on, is “in a bit of a pickle.” Toward the end of the show, he urged the crowd, “Whatever you do, just fucking vote,” adding, “I don’t want to live in racist MAGA world, and I don’t want to live in this faggy world, either.”
After the show, Yang retweeted a positive reaction from an audience member, Sunny Payne, who promised to “step up my game” after seeing Chappelle. “I’m #yanging a few dozen people on a good day,” Payne tweeted. “This man yangs THOUSANDS in an hour.”
Hetterly called Yang and Chappelle “the perfect marriage” when I reached him after the show. “Andrew is earnest and direct,” he explained. “He tries to be funny, but that’s not his lane.” Meanwhile, “Dave can challenge you to face your discomfort and ask questions.” He added, “People that find Andrew Yang appealing probably have that critical lens to decipher Dave’s humor. And anybody that finds Dave Chappelle immediately off-putting isn’t likely to vote for Andrew Yang to begin with.”


newyorker--2020-02-02--The Actors Parodying Democratic Candidates in “Adore Us! Line”

“ All the world ’ s a stage ” never seems more true than when applied to politics , a realm full of bombastic characters , combative speeches , valorous victories , and ruinous defeats , all well-matched to the theatrical flair of Shakespeare ’ s best .
The shifting allegiances of Caesar ?
Sure .
The tragedy of Lear ?
Of course .
The palace intrigue of the Richards and Henrys ?
Naturally .
But an Iowa stage production goes in a different direction altogether , taking the ludicrousness of the 2020 Presidential race to task by parodying it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darling “ A Chorus Line.
” With the Iowa caucuses on the horizon and almost a dozen candidates still battling for dominance in a glutted field , “ Adore Us !
Line ” offers a kind of mirror universe of music and dance .
A fictional Joe Biden , wearing a clownishly large tie , pleads , in song , for an Iowa voter to trust in him .
Other campaigners are in attendance , too , introducing themselves with winsome lyrics and tongue-in-cheek speeches : Cory Booker , Amy Klobuchar , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( “ I ’ m fourteen , ” the actor Ryan Henzi , who plays a miniature mayor of South Bend , says . )
But how will this group of faux-Presidential chorus-line actors , living in the state that ’ s known as ground zero for the democratic scrimmage , vote ?
Heidi Mason , who plays Klobuchar , said that she started rehearsals as a Buttigieg fan but then started leaning toward the Minnesota senator whom she portrays .
Henzi , too , though a couple years shy of being allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidate he plays .
“ Well , I have watched a lot of Pete Buttigieg , so I might be a little bit biased toward him , ” he said .
Joe Smith , who plays Bernie Sanders ( “ I am principled but pissed , ” he sings in the impassioned , impatient cadence of the progressive candidate ) , was also decided—for the Vermont senator , he hinted .
His wife , Mary Bricker , who ’ s also in the show , as Elizabeth Warren , was not yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Bricker offered , explaining her hesitancy about whom to support in the race .
But , donning a blond bob , wire-rim glasses , and , of course , a cardigan the bright shade of a cartoonishly ripe citrus fruit , Bricker attended a Warren campaign event to meet the senator face to face .
“ Just meeting someone in person tells you more about them , ” Bricker said .
She had an emotional meeting , Lands ’ End cardigan to Lands ’ End cardigan , with Warren .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Warren on their Facebook pages .
We may not see Biden or Sanders doing any “ step , kick , kick , leap , kick , touch ” anytime soon ( probably best for both septuagenarians ’ sakes , as well as our own ) .
And in reality , with Iowa caucusers readying their votes , there ’ s plenty of tension and democratic discord .
But , on at least one Iowa stage , politics is meant to be a show , something with low stakes , high kicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

“All the world’s a stage” never seems more true than when applied to politics, a realm full of bombastic characters, combative speeches, valorous victories, and ruinous defeats, all well-matched to the theatrical flair of Shakespeare’s best. The shifting allegiances of Caesar? Sure. The tragedy of Lear? Of course. The palace intrigue of the Richards and Henrys? Naturally. But an Iowa stage production goes in a different direction altogether, taking the ludicrousness of the 2020 Presidential race to task by parodying it in the style of the award-winning Broadway darling “A Chorus Line.”
With the Iowa caucuses on the horizon and almost a dozen candidates still battling for dominance in a glutted field, “Adore Us! Line” offers a kind of mirror universe of music and dance. A fictional Joe Biden, wearing a clownishly large tie, pleads, in song, for an Iowa voter to trust in him. Other campaigners are in attendance, too, introducing themselves with winsome lyrics and tongue-in-cheek speeches: Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg—the latter looking especially youthful. (“I’m fourteen,” the actor Ryan Henzi, who plays a miniature mayor of South Bend, says.)
But how will this group of faux-Presidential chorus-line actors, living in the state that’s known as ground zero for the democratic scrimmage, vote? Heidi Mason, who plays Klobuchar, said that she started rehearsals as a Buttigieg fan but then started leaning toward the Minnesota senator whom she portrays. Henzi, too, though a couple years shy of being allowed access to the polls, fell for the candidate he plays. “Well, I have watched a lot of Pete Buttigieg, so I might be a little bit biased toward him,” he said. Joe Smith, who plays Bernie Sanders (“I am principled but pissed,” he sings in the impassioned, impatient cadence of the progressive candidate), was also decided—for the Vermont senator, he hinted. His wife, Mary Bricker, who’s also in the show, as Elizabeth Warren, was not yet decided.
“This time feels different,” Bricker offered, explaining her hesitancy about whom to support in the race. But, donning a blond bob, wire-rim glasses, and, of course, a cardigan the bright shade of a cartoonishly ripe citrus fruit, Bricker attended a Warren campaign event to meet the senator face to face. “Just meeting someone in person tells you more about them,” Bricker said. She had an emotional meeting, Lands’ End cardigan to Lands’ End cardigan, with Warren. Last month, she and Mason declared their support for Warren on their Facebook pages.
We may not see Biden or Sanders doing any “step, kick, kick, leap, kick, touch” anytime soon (probably best for both septuagenarians’ sakes, as well as our own). And in reality, with Iowa caucusers readying their votes, there’s plenty of tension and democratic discord. But, on at least one Iowa stage, politics is meant to be a show, something with low stakes, high kicks, and maybe a few jazz hands.


newyorker--2020-02-02--Sunday Reading: All the President’s Men

Sunday Reading: All the President’s Men

In 1972 , the journalist David Halberstam published his classic work “ The Best and the Brightest , ” which chronicles the missteps of a group of White House advisers who , against the advice of career State Department employees , advocated dubious foreign-policy strategies and ultimately helped lead America into a lengthy war in Vietnam .
When both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations appointed their foreign-policy staff , Halberstam writes , the process came down to “ a search not for the most talent , the greatest brilliance , but for the fewest black marks , the fewest objections.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ within a President ’ s inner circle are often crucial not only to the health of the Presidency but to the progress and stability of the nation .
This week , we ’ re bringing you a selection of pieces about some of Donald Trump ’ s most influential advisers .
In “ Mike Pompeo , the Secretary of Trump , ” Susan B. Glasser describes how the evangelical Pompeo became one of the President ’ s loyal soldiers , and , in “ Audience of One , ” she explores Lindsey Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocate and examines how flattery has played an increasing role in guiding the President ’ s foreign-policy decisions .
In “ William Barr , Trump ’ s Sword and Shield , ” David Rohde writes about the Attorney General ’ s push to expand executive power , and recounts Barr ’ s role as a protector and warrior for Trump .
Jeffrey Toobin reflects on how Rudolph Giuliani transformed from “ America ’ s mayor ” into an aggressive peddler of the President ’ s mix of falsehoods , exaggerations , and half-truths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warpath , ” Dexter Filkins examines Bolton ’ s role when he was the national-security adviser and the measures he pushed during that period .
Finally , in an excerpt from her new book , Andrea Bernstein chronicles Jared Kushner ’ s family history and considers his current role in his father-in-law ’ s Administration .
Taken together , these pieces offer an illuminating portrait of the President ’ s inner circle .
How he became a heartland evangelical—and the President ’ s most loyal soldier .
The Attorney General ’ s mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidency .
The former mayor ’ s theatrical , combative style of politics anticipated—and perfectly aligns with—the President ’ s .
Can Trump ’ s national-security adviser sell the isolationist President on military force ?
The Kushner family history—from lying on immigration forms to becoming major Democratic donors—often seems at odds with the initiatives Jared supports in his father-in-law ’ s Administration .

In 1972, the journalist David Halberstam published his classic work “The Best and the Brightest,” which chronicles the missteps of a group of White House advisers who, against the advice of career State Department employees, advocated dubious foreign-policy strategies and ultimately helped lead America into a lengthy war in Vietnam. When both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations appointed their foreign-policy staff, Halberstam writes, the process came down to “a search not for the most talent, the greatest brilliance, but for the fewest black marks, the fewest objections.” The judgment and wisdom of those within a President’s inner circle are often crucial not only to the health of the Presidency but to the progress and stability of the nation. This week, we’re bringing you a selection of pieces about some of Donald Trump’s most influential advisers. In “Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of Trump,” Susan B. Glasser describes how the evangelical Pompeo became one of the President’s loyal soldiers, and, in “Audience of One,” she explores Lindsey Graham’s position as Trump’s advocate and examines how flattery has played an increasing role in guiding the President’s foreign-policy decisions. In “William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield,” David Rohde writes about the Attorney General’s push to expand executive power, and recounts Barr’s role as a protector and warrior for Trump. Jeffrey Toobin reflects on how Rudolph Giuliani transformed from “America’s mayor” into an aggressive peddler of the President’s mix of falsehoods, exaggerations, and half-truths. In “John Bolton on the Warpath,” Dexter Filkins examines Bolton’s role when he was the national-security adviser and the measures he pushed during that period. Finally, in an excerpt from her new book, Andrea Bernstein chronicles Jared Kushner’s family history and considers his current role in his father-in-law’s Administration. Taken together, these pieces offer an illuminating portrait of the President’s inner circle.
—David Remnick
Illustration by Paul Rogers
How he became a heartland evangelical—and the President’s most loyal soldier.
The Attorney General’s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.
Illustration by Barry Blitt
The former mayor’s theatrical, combative style of politics anticipated—and perfectly aligns with—the President’s.
Can Trump’s national-security adviser sell the isolationist President on military force?
Photograph by Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP / Shutterstock
The Kushner family history—from lying on immigration forms to becoming major Democratic donors—often seems at odds with the initiatives Jared supports in his father-in-law’s Administration.
Ask Lindsey Graham.