newyorker--2020-02-15--Why D.C.’s Mayor Endorsed Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg , who will enter the Democratic Presidential primaries on Super Tuesday , on March 3rd , and has already spent more than three hundred million dollars on his campaign , has risen to third place in an average of national polls of Democratic primary voters .
As Bloomberg ’ s chances of winning the nomination have increased , his record as the mayor of New York City , from 2002 to 2013 , has come under more scrutiny—in particular , his administration ’ s use of stop-and-frisk policing , in which police officers stopped and searched people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men of color .
Activists have also drawn attention to Bloomberg ’ s remarks about racial profiling : in 2008 , he said that the elimination of redlining , a discriminatory practice in which lenders denied loans to low-income residents of predominately black neighborhoods , was responsible for the financial crisis .
There have also been multiple allegations of Bloomberg making vulgar remarks about women , including his employees at Bloomberg L.P .
Multiple sex-based discrimination lawsuits have been filed against Bloomberg and his company .
Some of them have been resolved through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone to trial .
Despite these concerns , Bloomberg has also been racking up endorsements from members of Congress and mayors across the country .
On January 30th , he received the endorsement of Muriel Bowser , the mayor of Washington , D.C. , who described Bloomberg as a “ problem-solver , ” “ mentor , ” and “ friend.
” She is now a co-chair of his national campaign .
I recently spoke with Bowser , in a brief call arranged by the Bloomberg campaign .
As Bowser ’ s answers became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an end .
Our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , is below .
How did you come to know Michael Bloomberg and what made you decide to endorse him ?
I met Mike soon after I was nominated to be mayor of D.C. , back in 2014 .
I was meeting with a number of big-city mayors , and Mike gave me some time .
And what did you learn from that meeting ?
Well , we talked largely about D.C. public schools and public education , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Office , things that he thought worked early on in hiring and the like .
So it was a conversation I had with a number of mayors , and I thought it was very useful .
But I also thought it was very useful to talk about his experience with public education .
In New York City , like in Washington , D.C. , the mayor hires the chancellor and runs the schools .
Tell me specifically why you decided to endorse him and what it is you think that , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Presidency .
I think we need a new President .
And I think Mike Bloomberg is the person who is going to beat Donald Trump .
I think that he brings a certain pragmatism to the job because he has been a mayor , and because he works with constituents directly and delivers services to millions of people , and has that executive experience that ’ s important for the job .
And those are the reasons you decided to endorse him ?
Well , there are others that are specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bold supporter of D.C. statehood , and has a plan to get us to be the fifty-first state .
And his housing plan is very important to me , which is what we talked about when I endorsed him in D.C. Housing affordability is the No .
1 issue for D.C. residents , and Mike has stepped up with a plan to guarantee federal rental assistance for the lowest-earning families in the nation , and that is big for cities .
Bloomberg Philanthropies has made an investment in Washington schools , correct ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done in D.C. schools , it has been an important investment .
It allows us to test some innovative strategies .
But D.C. taxpayers have made the biggest investments in transforming our schools .
Even if you think beating Trump is the most important thing for democracy , do you worry about some cost to democracy if someone wins an election by spending this much money ?
Well , we saw somebody win an election by spending a lot of his own money , and so now we need to have somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
And Mike is making an investment in our democracy by doing that .
So you don ’ t have any concerns about it ?
I am very invested , and I am glad that Mike is invested , too , in replacing Donald Trump as President .
Mayor Bloomberg has faced more heat lately for some of his past stances on issues such as stop-and-frisk and the claim that the end of redlining was responsible for the financial crisis .
Do those stances concern you ?
I am grateful that Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it relates to stop-and-frisk .
He did it again to people last night in Houston , recognizing it was a policy that had unintended consequences , and that he wished he had put a stop to it sooner .
I think that is the mark of a good leader : recognizing when they have made a mistake , and doing everything they can to correct it .
But what ’ s also important , and I know what African-American voters across our country are interested to hear , is what is your plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to create more black homeownership and close the income gap between blacks and whites ?
What are you going to do to create jobs and help small businesses grow ?
Those are the things that many voters are talking to me about when they hear Mike ’ s agenda .
I have spoken to voters with all kinds of backgrounds .
I spent a day with survivors of gun violence , where we went to three Virginia cities .
There were black people and white people , and everybody was very focussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal guns , and pass commonsense gun reform .
And there was a lot of feedback from folks about Mike ’ s investment in doing exactly that as mayor and since he has been mayor .
So you are not at all concerned that some of his more controversial stances in the past , such as on stop-and-frisk , and which he defended as recently as 2019 , are being changed for political expediency ?
Well , I know that he put an end to the practice before he left office .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a judge ruled it illegal , correct ?
[ In 2013 , a federal judge ruled that New York City ’ s use of stop-and-frisk was racially discriminatory and unconstitutional .
Bloomberg ’ s administration appealed the ruling , and Mayor Bill de Blasio then dropped the appeal . ]
The practice was ended before Mike left office .
I think he regrets not talking about it more , talking about the deleterious effects before he left office , and also not talking about all the investments he was making in young men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in N.Y.C .
So we are all very focussed on what the agenda for black America is going to be—that is , the real solution to making things right with those young men who were targeted in New York or other cities in America .
Just to be clear , stop-and-frisk went on after he left office .
The other thing that has come up are comments that Bloomberg has made about women in the past .
Have you looked into those at all ?
I am aware of some things that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something you have talked to him about ?
I have talked to Mike about a lot of issues , but what is your question about it ?
Well , it seems like something that people who support him would be concerned about .
And I was curious if you had spoken to him about it , or had some thoughts about it .
I am certainly aware of a lot of allegations , including some we have talked about , and also aware that they don ’ t directly impact my thoughts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President .
They don ’ t ?
O.K.
, so that ’ s your answer ?
O.K.
, I appreciate you taking the time .

Michael Bloomberg, who will enter the Democratic Presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 3rd, and has already spent more than three hundred million dollars on his campaign, has risen to third place in an average of national polls of Democratic primary voters. As Bloomberg’s chances of winning the nomination have increased, his record as the mayor of New York City, from 2002 to 2013, has come under more scrutiny—in particular, his administration’s use of stop-and-frisk policing, in which police officers stopped and searched people on the street, many of them young men of color. Activists have also drawn attention to Bloomberg’s remarks about racial profiling: in 2008, he said that the elimination of redlining, a discriminatory practice in which lenders denied loans to low-income residents of predominately black neighborhoods, was responsible for the financial crisis. There have also been multiple allegations of Bloomberg making vulgar remarks about women, including his employees at Bloomberg L.P. Multiple sex-based discrimination lawsuits have been filed against Bloomberg and his company. Some of them have been resolved through settlements and nondisclosure agreements; none has gone to trial.
Despite these concerns, Bloomberg has also been racking up endorsements from members of Congress and mayors across the country. On January 30th, he received the endorsement of Muriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington, D.C., who described Bloomberg as a “problem-solver,” “mentor,” and “friend.” She is now a co-chair of his national campaign. I recently spoke with Bowser, in a brief call arranged by the Bloomberg campaign. As Bowser’s answers became increasingly terse, I brought the interview to an end. Our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, is below.
How did you come to know Michael Bloomberg and what made you decide to endorse him?
I met Mike soon after I was nominated to be mayor of D.C., back in 2014. I was meeting with a number of big-city mayors, and Mike gave me some time.
And what did you learn from that meeting?
Well, we talked largely about D.C. public schools and public education, how he set up his Mayor’s Office, things that he thought worked early on in hiring and the like. So it was a conversation I had with a number of mayors, and I thought it was very useful. But I also thought it was very useful to talk about his experience with public education. In New York City, like in Washington, D.C., the mayor hires the chancellor and runs the schools.
Tell me specifically why you decided to endorse him and what it is you think that, as a former mayor, he could bring to the Presidency.
I think we need a new President. And I think Mike Bloomberg is the person who is going to beat Donald Trump. I think that he brings a certain pragmatism to the job because he has been a mayor, and because he works with constituents directly and delivers services to millions of people, and has that executive experience that’s important for the job.
And those are the reasons you decided to endorse him?
Well, there are others that are specific to Washington. Mike is a very bold supporter of D.C. statehood, and has a plan to get us to be the fifty-first state. And his housing plan is very important to me, which is what we talked about when I endorsed him in D.C. Housing affordability is the No. 1 issue for D.C. residents, and Mike has stepped up with a plan to guarantee federal rental assistance for the lowest-earning families in the nation, and that is big for cities.
Bloomberg Philanthropies has made an investment in Washington schools, correct?
Yes, and relative to what we have done in D.C. schools, it has been an important investment. It allows us to test some innovative strategies. But D.C. taxpayers have made the biggest investments in transforming our schools.
Even if you think beating Trump is the most important thing for democracy, do you worry about some cost to democracy if someone wins an election by spending this much money?
Well, we saw somebody win an election by spending a lot of his own money, and so now we need to have somebody who is going to fight back against that. And Mike is making an investment in our democracy by doing that.
So you don’t have any concerns about it?
I am very invested, and I am glad that Mike is invested, too, in replacing Donald Trump as President.
Mayor Bloomberg has faced more heat lately for some of his past stances on issues such as stop-and-frisk and the claim that the end of redlining was responsible for the financial crisis. Do those stances concern you?
I am grateful that Mike has explained those positions, especially as it relates to stop-and-frisk. He did it again to people last night in Houston, recognizing it was a policy that had unintended consequences, and that he wished he had put a stop to it sooner. I think that is the mark of a good leader: recognizing when they have made a mistake, and doing everything they can to correct it. But what’s also important, and I know what African-American voters across our country are interested to hear, is what is your plan for black America. How are you going to create more black homeownership and close the income gap between blacks and whites? What are you going to do to create jobs and help small businesses grow? Those are the things that many voters are talking to me about when they hear Mike’s agenda.
I have spoken to voters with all kinds of backgrounds. I spent a day with survivors of gun violence, where we went to three Virginia cities. There were black people and white people, and everybody was very focussed on how we rid our country of illegal guns, and pass commonsense gun reform. And there was a lot of feedback from folks about Mike’s investment in doing exactly that as mayor and since he has been mayor.
So you are not at all concerned that some of his more controversial stances in the past, such as on stop-and-frisk, and which he defended as recently as 2019, are being changed for political expediency?
Well, I know that he put an end to the practice before he left office. [This is incorrect.]
I believe a judge ruled it illegal, correct? [In 2013, a federal judge ruled that New York City’s use of stop-and-frisk was racially discriminatory and unconstitutional. Bloomberg’s administration appealed the ruling, and Mayor Bill de Blasio then dropped the appeal.]
The practice was ended before Mike left office. I think he regrets not talking about it more, talking about the deleterious effects before he left office, and also not talking about all the investments he was making in young men of color in the programs he started in N.Y.C. So we are all very focussed on what the agenda for black America is going to be—that is, the real solution to making things right with those young men who were targeted in New York or other cities in America.
Just to be clear, stop-and-frisk went on after he left office. The other thing that has come up are comments that Bloomberg has made about women in the past. Have you looked into those at all?
I am aware of some things that have been printed, yes.
Is that something you have talked to him about?
I have talked to Mike about a lot of issues, but what is your question about it?
Well, it seems like something that people who support him would be concerned about. And I was curious if you had spoken to him about it, or had some thoughts about it.
I am certainly aware of a lot of allegations, including some we have talked about, and also aware that they don’t directly impact my thoughts that Mike is going to be a good President.
They don’t? O.K., so that’s your answer?
[No answer.]
O.K., I appreciate you taking the time.
Thank you.


newyorker--2020-02-15--Seven Questions for Mike Bloomberg

Seven Questions for Mike Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg is now a serious contender for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination .
His unprecedented spending on campaign ads—more than three hundred million dollars , according to some accounts—has lifted him to third place in the Real Clear Politics national poll average .
A new poll on Thursday , from the firm St. Pete Polls , showed him leading in Florida .
He ’ s also spending heavily on the ground .
Even in Maine , the Bangor Daily News reports , he has hired twenty staffers and dozens of volunteers .
The only other candidates with local offices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are both from nearby states .
The skeptics about Bloomberg ’ s viability , myself included , underestimated the power of money , and also , perhaps , the strength of Bloomberg ’ s personal brand .
With a résumé that includes being a successful entrepreneur , serving three terms as mayor of New York City , and providing gobs of financial support to various liberal causes such as gun control , abortion rights , and voter-registration efforts , he has earned ( or bought ) good will , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ askance at Sanders ’ s rise .
But now the game is going to become more challenging for Bloomberg .
As he takes part in debates and competes in actual primaries , beginning with Super Tuesday , on March 3rd , he ’ ll get asked some awkward questions , and not just about stop-and-frisk , the controversial and discriminatory policing technique that he championed as mayor , which has already dogged his campaign .
Here are seven more questions for Bloomberg to answer : 1 .
If you win in November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employs more than twenty thousand people and reportedly has annual revenues of more than ten billion dollars ?
Bloomberg has called Donald Trump corrupt , but he hasn ’ t fully spelled out how he would differentiate himself from the incumbent President , who held onto his business empire after the 2016 election and merely transferred day-to-day control of it to his sons .
When Bloomberg became mayor , he removed himself from day-to-day control of Bloomberg L.P. but maintained ownership and retained the right to take part in major decisions involving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had already been mayor for five years , the New York Times reported that he still spoke regularly with senior executives at Bloomberg L.P .
In December , 2018 , Bloomberg intimated that if he was elected as President , he might sell Bloomberg L.P. , saying , “ I think at my age , if selling it is possible , I would do that.
” But he has also raised the possibility of maintaining ownership and placing the company in a blind trust .
2 .
Why won ’ t you allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L.P. to speak out publicly ?
According to ABC News , at least seventeen women have taken legal action against the company over the past three decades , “ with three of the cases specifically naming Bloomberg for his role in creating a toxic corporate culture , ” although none of the cases has made it to trial before dismissal or settlement .
One woman alleged that , after she announced she was pregnant , he said to her , “ Kill it.
” ( Bloomberg has repeatedly denied having said this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sexist comments in the office , including , “ I ’ d like to do that piece of meat.
” Although Bloomberg has expressed regret about past “ bawdy jokes , ” he has refused to release any women from the nondisclosure agreements that they signed with his company as part of settlements .
“ We do n't have anything to hide , ” he said on “ The View , ” in January , “ But we made legal agreements which both sides wanted to keep things from coming out.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your policy be on charter schools ?
As mayor , Bloomberg championed charters in New York City , and he has contributed to other Democrats who support them .
Many Democrats , including the major teachers ’ unions , are strongly opposed to charters ; Sanders and Warren have both pledged to eliminate federal funding for them .
During the 2016 Democratic primary , Hillary Clinton reversed her prior support of charters .
Bloomberg seems highly unlikely to do that , but what is his plan ?
4 .
Do you support Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations that Congress adopted after the financial crisis ?
Speaking at a securities-industry conference in 2014 , Bloomberg criticized the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank Act .
According to a report from Buzzfeed News at the time , Bloomberg said that some of the new rules “ can be dysfunctional , ” and added , “ You don ’ t write a piece of legislation that way by letting Congress do it.
” The legislation should have been “ created by the people who really understand how the world works , how financial services work.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stricter regulations in general , arguing that restricting the amount of risk-taking in the financial system could do the economy great harm .
“ If you reduce the risk , they can ’ t make the money , they can ’ t provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure , ” he said .
5 .
Why did you say that the end of “ redlining , ” the discriminatory practice by which banks refused home mortgages in nonwhite areas , was responsible for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone , ” Bloomberg said at a forum , in 2008 , according to the Associated Press .
“ Congress got involved—local elected officials , as well—and said , ‘ Oh that ’ s not fair , these people should be able to get credit.
’ ” This theory of the crisis ignores , or downplays , the role of Wall Street banks , including the successor to one that Bloomberg used to work for , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big profits by issuing questionable loans and dicing them up into various exotic securities .
Virtually all of Bloomberg ’ s Democratic rivals have said that they would look to set up a nationwide system of day care for children of preschool age .
Under the plans rolled out by Joe Biden , Sanders , and Tom Steyer , the service would be free to everybody , with taxpayers in general picking up the tab .
Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , and Warren have said they would provide free pre-K to poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , subsidies that would gradually phase out at higher income levels .
As mayor of New York , Bloomberg expanded pre-K programs for poor families , but stopped short of setting up a universal program .
That step was left to his successor , Bill de Blasio , whose own Presidential bid fizzled last year , and who has recently endorsed Bernie Sanders .
7 .
If you were elected , would you do anything to reduce the influence of money in politics ?
Would Democratic voters , whom Bloomberg is asking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of assurance that he would be the last plutocrat President ?
On his campaign Web site , Bloomberg pledges to revitalize the Voting Rights Act and end gerrymandering .
There is nothing , however , about limiting the sort of spending that he is engaging in , curbing the power of lobbyists—a number of whom are working on his campaign—or appointing Supreme Court Justices who are committed to overturning Citizens United .
( His campaign said he would mirror the anti-lobbying measures he introduced as mayor . )
Unless Bloomberg embraces an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he is essentially offering the voters a form of benign oligarchy .
To be sure , that would be better than Trump ’ s malignant oligarchy .
But can ’ t American democracy do better than that ?
Over to you , Mike .

Michael Bloomberg is now a serious contender for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. His unprecedented spending on campaign ads—more than three hundred million dollars, according to some accounts—has lifted him to third place in the Real Clear Politics national poll average. A new poll on Thursday, from the firm St. Pete Polls, showed him leading in Florida. He’s also spending heavily on the ground. Even in Maine, the Bangor Daily News reports, he has hired twenty staffers and dozens of volunteers. The only other candidates with local offices there are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are both from nearby states.
The skeptics about Bloomberg’s viability, myself included, underestimated the power of money, and also, perhaps, the strength of Bloomberg’s personal brand. With a résumé that includes being a successful entrepreneur, serving three terms as mayor of New York City, and providing gobs of financial support to various liberal causes such as gun control, abortion rights, and voter-registration efforts, he has earned (or bought) good will, especially among moderate Democrats and independents who are looking askance at Sanders’s rise. But now the game is going to become more challenging for Bloomberg. As he takes part in debates and competes in actual primaries, beginning with Super Tuesday, on March 3rd, he’ll get asked some awkward questions, and not just about stop-and-frisk, the controversial and discriminatory policing technique that he championed as mayor, which has already dogged his campaign. Here are seven more questions for Bloomberg to answer:
1. If you win in November, will you sell Bloomberg L.P., which employs more than twenty thousand people and reportedly has annual revenues of more than ten billion dollars?
Bloomberg has called Donald Trump corrupt, but he hasn’t fully spelled out how he would differentiate himself from the incumbent President, who held onto his business empire after the 2016 election and merely transferred day-to-day control of it to his sons. When Bloomberg became mayor, he removed himself from day-to-day control of Bloomberg L.P. but maintained ownership and retained the right to take part in major decisions involving the company. In 2007, when he had already been mayor for five years, the New York Times reported that he still spoke regularly with senior executives at Bloomberg L.P. In December, 2018, Bloomberg intimated that if he was elected as President, he might sell Bloomberg L.P., saying, “I think at my age, if selling it is possible, I would do that.” But he has also raised the possibility of maintaining ownership and placing the company in a blind trust.
2. Why won’t you allow women who filed sexual-harassment cases against Bloomberg L.P. to speak out publicly?
According to ABC News, at least seventeen women have taken legal action against the company over the past three decades, “with three of the cases specifically naming Bloomberg for his role in creating a toxic corporate culture,” although none of the cases has made it to trial before dismissal or settlement. One woman alleged that, after she announced she was pregnant, he said to her, “Kill it.” (Bloomberg has repeatedly denied having said this.) Other women recalled him making lewd, sexist comments in the office, including, “I’d like to do that piece of meat.” Although Bloomberg has expressed regret about past “bawdy jokes,” he has refused to release any women from the nondisclosure agreements that they signed with his company as part of settlements. “We don’t have anything to hide,” he said on “The View,” in January. “But we made legal agreements which both sides wanted to keep things from coming out.”
3. As President, what will your policy be on charter schools?
As mayor, Bloomberg championed charters in New York City, and he has contributed to other Democrats who support them. Many Democrats, including the major teachers’ unions, are strongly opposed to charters; Sanders and Warren have both pledged to eliminate federal funding for them. During the 2016 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton reversed her prior support of charters. Bloomberg seems highly unlikely to do that, but what is his plan?
4. Do you support Republicans’ calls to relax the stricter financial regulations that Congress adopted after the financial crisis?
Speaking at a securities-industry conference in 2014, Bloomberg criticized the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. According to a report from BuzzFeed News at the time, Bloomberg said that some of the new rules “can be dysfunctional,” and added, “You don’t write a piece of legislation that way by letting Congress do it.” The legislation should have been “created by the people who really understand how the world works, how financial services work.” Bloomberg also questioned the need for stricter regulations in general, arguing that restricting the amount of risk-taking in the financial system could do the economy great harm. “If you reduce the risk, they can’t make the money, they can’t provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure,” he said.
5. Why did you say that the end of “redlining,” the discriminatory practice by which banks refused home mortgages in nonwhite areas, was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008?
“It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone,” Bloomberg said at a forum, in 2008, according to the Associated Press. “Congress got involved—local elected officials, as well—and said, ‘Oh that’s not fair, these people should be able to get credit.’ ” This theory of the crisis ignores, or downplays, the role of Wall Street banks, including the successor to one that Bloomberg used to work for, in creating an entire subprime-loan industry that made big profits by issuing questionable loans and dicing them up into various exotic securities.
6. Do you support universal pre-K?
Virtually all of Bloomberg’s Democratic rivals have said that they would look to set up a nationwide system of day care for children of preschool age. Under the plans rolled out by Joe Biden, Sanders, and Tom Steyer, the service would be free to everybody, with taxpayers in general picking up the tab. Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Warren have said they would provide free pre-K to poor families, and, to other households, subsidies that would gradually phase out at higher income levels. As mayor of New York, Bloomberg expanded pre-K programs for poor families, but stopped short of setting up a universal program. That step was left to his successor, Bill de Blasio, whose own Presidential bid fizzled last year, and who has recently endorsed Bernie Sanders.
7. If you were elected, would you do anything to reduce the influence of money in politics? Would Democratic voters, whom Bloomberg is asking to support his billion-dollar campaign, get any type of assurance that he would be the last plutocrat President?
On his campaign Web site, Bloomberg pledges to revitalize the Voting Rights Act and end gerrymandering. There is nothing, however, about limiting the sort of spending that he is engaging in, curbing the power of lobbyists—a number of whom are working on his campaign—or appointing Supreme Court Justices who are committed to overturning Citizens United. (His campaign said he would mirror the anti-lobbying measures he introduced as mayor.) Unless Bloomberg embraces an aggressive agenda to reform the political system, he is essentially offering the voters a form of benign oligarchy. To be sure, that would be better than Trump’s malignant oligarchy. But can’t American democracy do better than that? Over to you, Mike.


newyorker--2020-02-15--If Shamima Begum, the ISIS Bride, Is No Longer British, What Does Citizenship Mean?

Last week , a British court refused an appeal by Shamima Begum , a twenty-year-old woman from London , to regain her British citizenship .
Begum was deprived of her nationality last February , after she was discovered by the Times of London in a refugee camp in northern Syria for women and children who had escaped the collapse of ISIS .
Begum was nineteen at the time and nine months pregnant .
She had travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State , and , during her four years there , she married a Dutch jihadi and lost two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Anthony Loyd , a war reporter for the Times , after he had stopped by the al-Hawl camp on the last day of an assignment .
“ I am a sister from London .
I ’ m a Bethnal Green girl , ” Begum told Loyd .
She was anxious about her unborn child .
“ I ’ m scared that this baby is going to get sick in this camp , ” Begum said .
“ That ’ s why I really want to get back to Britain , because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health-wise at least.
” Loyd ’ s story ran on the front page of the newspaper .
Five days later , Sajid Javid , the Home Secretary at the time , stripped Begum of her citizenship .
Her baby , a boy named Jarrah , died of a respiratory infection , when he was three weeks old .
European governments have used a hodgepodge of methods to deal with citizens who went to fight for the Islamic State or live in the doomed caliphate .
In 2017 , during the battle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that French special forces had been sent to the city in order to enlist Iraqi soldiers to kill French nationals .
Two years earlier , David Cameron , the British Prime Minister , authorized drone strikes against two British men who were said to be plotting terrorist attacks from Syria .
The approach to women who went to join ISIS , and children born during its tumultuous existence , has been , in general , both more lenient and more passive .
In 2016 , Laura Passoni , a Belgian woman who spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fined fifteen thousand euros and given a suspended jail sentence .
Albania , among other countries , has policies of monitoring , rather than prosecuting , women who married Islamic State fighters and then returned from the conflict .
When possible , most states have done nothing at all .
“ I ’ m not putting at risk British people ’ s lives to go looking for terrorists or former terrorists in a failed state , ” Ben Wallace , the Minister of State for Security , told the BBC last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two or three thousand women and children with western European citizenship are currently thought to be at the mercy of overwhelmed justice systems and resettlement camps , struggling to cope with the aftermath of the Islamic State .
Last November , the Turkish government abruptly announced that it would no longer be “ a hotel for foreign terrorists ” and began repatriating German women who had been picked up in former ISIS territory .
At the time , Human Rights Watch reported that there were thirty British women and sixty British children under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria .
The British government said that , since the United Kingdom does not have a consulate in Syria , it would not be able to “ provide assistance ” —although it later began to bring home British children orphaned by the conflict .
An easier option has been to try to turn difficult citizens into former citizens .
“ I think the government position is precisely that , ” Richard Barrett , a former head of global counterterrorism for M.I.6 , Britain ’ s Secret Intelligence Service , told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of the problem to somewhere else , let ’ s get rid of the problem somewhere else.
” Since 2006 , Home Secretaries have been able to deprive a person of her British citizenship if it is “ conducive to the public good ” —a subjective rather than a strict legal test—as long as it does not leave her stateless .
Until 2012 , the power was rarely used .
In 2016 , there were fourteen cases .
In 2017 , a hundred and four people lost British citizenship , mostly jihadis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dual nationality .
The decisions haven ’ t always been popular with other states , which have to pick up the pieces .
Last August , Jack Letts , a jihadi from Oxfordshire who was imprisoned in Syria , was stripped of his citizenship after the government found out that his father was Canadian .
Letts was brought up in Britain and converted to Islam when he was sixteen .
He went to Syria after dropping out of school with mental-health problems .
“ Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the office of Ralph Goodale , the country ’ s Minister of Public Safety , said in a statement .
The British government defended its policy of removing citizenship .
“ This power is one way we can counter the terrorist threat posed by some of the most dangerous individuals and keep our country safe , ” a spokesperson said .
Begum was fifteen when she left London with two classmates , Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana .
She was studying for her G.C.S.E.s at Bethnal Green Academy , a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in East London .
During a school vacation , the girls took a Turkish Airlines flight to Istanbul and crossed into Syria by bus .
Begum travelled on her older sister ’ s passport and wore a leopard-print scarf .
The British police encouraged the girls ’ families to publicize their disappearance , in the hope of changing their minds .
The “ Bethnal Green Girls ” became a media sensation at a time when the Islamic State was seizing territory at will , along with , apparently , the minds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We hope and pray for the safe return of the pupils , ” Nicky Morgan , who was , at the time , the country ’ s Education Secretary , wrote to their school .
A few weeks later , the Metropolitan Police Commissioner , Bernard Hogan-Howe , suggested that the girls would not be prosecuted if they came back .
“ They have no reason to fear , if nothing else comes to light , that we will be treating them as terrorists , ” he said .
When Loyd found Begum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She was awkward but direct .
Begum described seeing the severed head of a fighter in a trash can in Raqqa .
“ It didn ’ t faze me at all , ” she said .
She condoned the torture and murder of Western journalists by ISIS , because she thought that they were probably spies .
“ Begum ’ s remarks were exactly what I would expect from a teen who had spent nearly three years living in the sealed echo chamber of the caliphate before turning 18 , ” Loyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
In the same conversation , however , Begum questioned the legitimacy of ISIS , which had detained and tortured her husband .
Her two classmates had been killed by airstrikes .
She was clearly fed up .
“ Overall , the young woman I met that day was a paradox , ” Loyd wrote .
“ The incomplete changeling : vulnerable , anxious and desperate to save her unborn baby , yet indoctrinated and apparently without regard for the lives of prisoners.
” International law forbids governments from rendering their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justified taking away Begum ’ s nationality on the grounds that her mother is Bangladeshi , and so she is eligible for citizenship until the age of twenty-one .
This is a fiction .
Begum has never lived in Bangladesh .
Last May , the country ’ s Foreign Minister , Abdul Momen , told the BBC that Begum has “ nothing to do ” with Bangladesh and would be refused entry .
“ The British government is responsible for her , ” he said .
“ They ’ ll have to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MI6 official , told me that Begum ’ s fate was not being driven by security concerns or logic .
“ This is a purely political decision , ” he said .
“ Why one would think that Bangladesh had any better capacity to deal with somebody ?
It doesn ’ t make any sense.
” In refusing Begum ’ s appeal last week , the U.K. ’ s Special Immigration Appeals Commission acknowledged that her situation at the al-Roj refugee camp , in northern Syria , exposes her to the risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also accepted that Begum “ can not play any meaningful part in her appeal , and that , to that extent , the appeal will not be fair and effective .
”

Last week, a British court refused an appeal by Shamima Begum, a twenty-year-old woman from London, to regain her British citizenship. Begum was deprived of her nationality last February, after she was discovered by the Times of London in a refugee camp in northern Syria for women and children who had escaped the collapse of ISIS. Begum was nineteen at the time and nine months pregnant. She had travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State, and, during her four years there, she married a Dutch jihadi and lost two children to disease. Begum identified herself to Anthony Loyd, a war reporter for the Times, after he had stopped by the al-Hawl camp on the last day of an assignment. “I am a sister from London. I’m a Bethnal Green girl,” Begum told Loyd. She was anxious about her unborn child. “I’m scared that this baby is going to get sick in this camp,” Begum said. “That’s why I really want to get back to Britain, because I know it will get taken care of, health-wise at least.” Loyd’s story ran on the front page of the newspaper. Five days later, Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary at the time, stripped Begum of her citizenship. Her baby, a boy named Jarrah, died of a respiratory infection, when he was three weeks old.
European governments have used a hodgepodge of methods to deal with citizens who went to fight for the Islamic State or live in the doomed caliphate. In 2017, during the battle for Mosul, the Wall Street Journal reported that French special forces had been sent to the city in order to enlist Iraqi soldiers to kill French nationals. Two years earlier, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, authorized drone strikes against two British men who were said to be plotting terrorist attacks from Syria. The approach to women who went to join ISIS, and children born during its tumultuous existence, has been, in general, both more lenient and more passive. In 2016, Laura Passoni, a Belgian woman who spent nine months living outside Aleppo, was fined fifteen thousand euros and given a suspended jail sentence. Albania, among other countries, has policies of monitoring, rather than prosecuting, women who married Islamic State fighters and then returned from the conflict.
When possible, most states have done nothing at all. “I’m not putting at risk British people’s lives to go looking for terrorists or former terrorists in a failed state,” Ben Wallace, the Minister of State for Security, told the BBC last year, when Begum was found. An estimated two or three thousand women and children with western European citizenship are currently thought to be at the mercy of overwhelmed justice systems and resettlement camps, struggling to cope with the aftermath of the Islamic State. Last November, the Turkish government abruptly announced that it would no longer be “a hotel for foreign terrorists” and began repatriating German women who had been picked up in former ISIS territory. At the time, Human Rights Watch reported that there were thirty British women and sixty British children under the control of Kurdish authorities in northeast Syria. The British government said that, since the United Kingdom does not have a consulate in Syria, it would not be able to “provide assistance”—although it later began to bring home British children orphaned by the conflict.
An easier option has been to try to turn difficult citizens into former citizens. “I think the government position is precisely that,” Richard Barrett, a former head of global counterterrorism for M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, told me. “If there is a way of getting rid of the problem to somewhere else, let’s get rid of the problem somewhere else.” Since 2006, Home Secretaries have been able to deprive a person of her British citizenship if it is “conducive to the public good”—a subjective rather than a strict legal test—as long as it does not leave her stateless. Until 2012, the power was rarely used. In 2016, there were fourteen cases. In 2017, a hundred and four people lost British citizenship, mostly jihadis and violent criminals, who had held dual nationality.
The decisions haven’t always been popular with other states, which have to pick up the pieces. Last August, Jack Letts, a jihadi from Oxfordshire who was imprisoned in Syria, was stripped of his citizenship after the government found out that his father was Canadian. Letts was brought up in Britain and converted to Islam when he was sixteen. He went to Syria after dropping out of school with mental-health problems. “Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities,” the office of Ralph Goodale, the country’s Minister of Public Safety, said in a statement. The British government defended its policy of removing citizenship. “This power is one way we can counter the terrorist threat posed by some of the most dangerous individuals and keep our country safe,” a spokesperson said.
Begum was fifteen when she left London with two classmates, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana. She was studying for her G.C.S.E.s at Bethnal Green Academy, a high school not far from where I live, in East London. During a school vacation, the girls took a Turkish Airlines flight to Istanbul and crossed into Syria by bus. Begum travelled on her older sister’s passport and wore a leopard-print scarf. The British police encouraged the girls’ families to publicize their disappearance, in the hope of changing their minds. The “Bethnal Green Girls” became a media sensation at a time when the Islamic State was seizing territory at will, along with, apparently, the minds of impressionable, smart British schoolgirls. “We hope and pray for the safe return of the pupils,” Nicky Morgan, who was, at the time, the country’s Education Secretary, wrote to their school. A few weeks later, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, suggested that the girls would not be prosecuted if they came back. “They have no reason to fear, if nothing else comes to light, that we will be treating them as terrorists,” he said.
Shamima Begum with her newborn baby, in Syria. Photograph from ANL / Shutterstock
When Loyd found Begum, he was struck by her guilelessness. She was awkward but direct. Begum described seeing the severed head of a fighter in a trash can in Raqqa. “It didn’t faze me at all,” she said. She condoned the torture and murder of Western journalists by ISIS, because she thought that they were probably spies. “Begum’s remarks were exactly what I would expect from a teen who had spent nearly three years living in the sealed echo chamber of the caliphate before turning 18,” Loyd wrote in a story for British GQ last year. In the same conversation, however, Begum questioned the legitimacy of ISIS, which had detained and tortured her husband. Her two classmates had been killed by airstrikes. She was clearly fed up. “Overall, the young woman I met that day was a paradox,” Loyd wrote. “The incomplete changeling: vulnerable, anxious and desperate to save her unborn baby, yet indoctrinated and apparently without regard for the lives of prisoners.”
International law forbids governments from rendering their citizens stateless. The British government has justified taking away Begum’s nationality on the grounds that her mother is Bangladeshi, and so she is eligible for citizenship until the age of twenty-one. This is a fiction. Begum has never lived in Bangladesh. Last May, the country’s Foreign Minister, Abdul Momen, told the BBC that Begum has “nothing to do” with Bangladesh and would be refused entry. “The British government is responsible for her,” he said. “They’ll have to deal with her.” Barrett, the former MI6 official, told me that Begum’s fate was not being driven by security concerns or logic. “This is a purely political decision,” he said. “Why one would think that Bangladesh had any better capacity to deal with somebody? It doesn’t make any sense.” In refusing Begum’s appeal last week, the U.K.’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission acknowledged that her situation at the al-Roj refugee camp, in northern Syria, exposes her to the risk of torture and degrading treatment. It is also accepted that Begum “cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal, and that, to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective.”
On Friday morning, I spoke to Loyd, the reporter who found Begum last February. He was just back from an assignment in Libya. It was a year to the day since Loyd’s story, headlined “Bring Me Home,” had appeared on the front page of the Times. “I have played it back a million times—could I have done it differently?” he said. Loyd stands by his reporting, which conveyed both Begum’s views and her vulnerability. “I tried to capture everything,” he said. “What happened after that is something that bothers me a lot.” Loyd was as surprised as anybody when Begum lost her citizenship. “It never even crossed my mind. I thought she would be out within a couple of weeks of me finding her,” he said. “I presumed that there would be a bit of a furor. I believed that sense would prevail.” Since he found her, Loyd has interviewed Begum twice more. He last saw her in October. Nothing has shaken his first impression. “I felt consistently that I was talking to a British girl and a London girl,” he told me. “I kind of thought, You’re all messed up. You’re all over the place. You’re not irretrievable. You’re one of the Bethnal Green Girls. So let’s bring you back.”


newyorker--2020-02-15--New LinkedIn Features (to Make You Feel Bad About Your Career Decisions)

Who ’ s Talking Shit About You : On LinkedIn , you already know who ’ s viewed your profile .
Now , with our latest feature , you can also see who ’ s been dissing you behind your back .
If you ’ ve ever wondered why your ex has been looking at your LinkedIn page , then you ’ ll love hearing what she has to say about your beard and the “ people skills ” you claim to have .
Honest Endorsements : Let ’ s be honest , your college roommate isn ’ t qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership and social-media marketing .
New endorsable skills include “ quiet crier , ” “ likes Lizzo ” and “ shit-talks but only about people who deserve it.
” Desperate Text : With our predictive-text options , you can now sound even more like the human manifestation of a résumé .
Congratulate a peer on his work anniversary using automated phrases like “ Amazing !
You make money !
” and “ Congratulations !
Give me a job ?
” Headshot/Headline Filter : Upload any photo of yourself and we will run it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look less like yourself and more like a person who shops regularly at JoS .
A .
Bank .
Also , we will help you craft a headline that screams “ I need dental insurance—I have seven cavities.
” Direct-Comparison Newsfeed : We designed LinkedIn to remind you that the entire roster of your college ’ s lacrosse team is more successful than you are because each athlete majored in finance .
On your homepage , you ’ ll see your connections ’ impressive job titles , high salaries , and photos of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stark contrast to your grim , advertising-admin job .
Push Notifications for Other People ’ s Achievements : We already e-mail you whenever one of your connections has a “ work anniversary , ” for some reason .
Now we ’ re excited to announce that , whenever anyone you know achieves anything at all , we ’ ll send an alert directly to your phone .
A promotion , a raise , or simply a feeling that they ’ re killin ’ it .
And , yes , we ’ ll let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than you !
Dream-Jobs Search : LinkedIn is a powerful tool for today ’ s job seekers .
Our site can now display a list of jobs that perfectly align with your interests ( as long as they are in B2B marketing ) and that you need two to five more years of experience in the industry for .
Apply for any of them by dropping your résumé into our Web portal ( spam folder ) and then never hear back .
You ’ ll be perfect for these jobs after a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Everyone on LinkedIn has always been able to write an article on business or professional development and share it with the world , regardless of their actual knowledge of the topic .
Now anyone can record an unedited podcast and throw it up onto your newsfeed .
How does your mom ’ s friend from Tampa feel about new trends in social-media marketing ?
Find out in only two and a half hours of riveting conversation .
Celebrate a Teammate : We ’ re not updating this feature , we just wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only person in your network who has yet to achieve a career milestone worth publicly celebrating .
Let Recruiters Know You ’ re Searching : Ha ha , just kidding .
The recruiters don ’ t care if you ’ re searching .
But we have added more bots to message you about fake positions at charter schools .
Do not accept their offers , as seductive as they may seem , unless you love kids and also eventually becoming part of the singularity we ’ re building at our corporate headquarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone younger and more successful than you ( like your cousin who ’ s disrupting the cereal industry ! )
, but then return to your body at the end of the day and just live with the knowledge that your professional anxiety is entirely justified .
You must upgrade to Premium for this feature .

Who’s Talking Shit About You: On LinkedIn, you already know who’s viewed your profile. Now, with our latest feature, you can also see who’s been dissing you behind your back. If you’ve ever wondered why your ex has been looking at your LinkedIn page, then you’ll love hearing what she has to say about your beard and the “people skills” you claim to have.
Honest Endorsements: Let’s be honest, your college roommate isn’t qualified to endorse you for your talents in leadership and social-media marketing. New endorsable skills include “quiet crier,” “likes Lizzo” and “shit-talks but only about people who deserve it.”
Desperate Text: With our predictive-text options, you can now sound even more like the human manifestation of a résumé. Congratulate a peer on his work anniversary using automated phrases like “Amazing! You make money!” and “Congratulations! Give me a job?”
Headshot/Headline Filter: Upload any photo of yourself and we will run it through our special filter to make you look less like yourself and more like a person who shops regularly at JoS. A. Bank. Also, we will help you craft a headline that screams “I need dental insurance—I have seven cavities.”
Direct-Comparison Newsfeed: We designed LinkedIn to remind you that the entire roster of your college’s lacrosse team is more successful than you are because each athlete majored in finance. On your homepage, you’ll see your connections’ impressive job titles, high salaries, and photos of their beautiful, smiling families—all presented in stark contrast to your grim, advertising-admin job.
Push Notifications for Other People’s Achievements: We already e-mail you whenever one of your connections has a “work anniversary,” for some reason. Now we’re excited to announce that, whenever anyone you know achieves anything at all, we’ll send an alert directly to your phone. A promotion, a raise, or simply a feeling that they’re killin’ it. And, yes, we’ll let you know if they’re younger than you!
Dream-Jobs Search: LinkedIn is a powerful tool for today’s job seekers. Our site can now display a list of jobs that perfectly align with your interests (as long as they are in B2B marketing) and that you need two to five more years of experience in the industry for. Apply for any of them by dropping your résumé into our Web portal (spam folder) and then never hear back. You’ll be perfect for these jobs after a few more internships, probably!
Podcast Publishing: Everyone on LinkedIn has always been able to write an article on business or professional development and share it with the world, regardless of their actual knowledge of the topic. Now anyone can record an unedited podcast and throw it up onto your newsfeed. How does your mom’s friend from Tampa feel about new trends in social-media marketing? Find out in only two and a half hours of riveting conversation.
Celebrate a Teammate: We’re not updating this feature, we just wanted to inform you that you’re the only person in your network who has yet to achieve a career milestone worth publicly celebrating.
Let Recruiters Know You’re Searching: Ha ha, just kidding. The recruiters don’t care if you’re searching. But we have added more bots to message you about fake positions at charter schools. Do not accept their offers, as seductive as they may seem, unless you love kids and also eventually becoming part of the singularity we’re building at our corporate headquarters.
Freaky-Friday Feature: Swap places with someone younger and more successful than you (like your cousin who’s disrupting the cereal industry!), but then return to your body at the end of the day and just live with the knowledge that your professional anxiety is entirely justified. You must upgrade to Premium for this feature.


newyorker--2020-02-15--The New Coronavirus and Preparing for the Next Viral Pandemic

It ’ s hard to predict the trajectory or the ultimate death toll of a viral bomb without knowing precisely how it was launched .
As the coronavirus that was identified in Wuhan , China , in late December , continues to race around the globe , scientists are struggling to answer many vital questions : How easily does it spread from person to person ?
What is the real incubation period—the time during which infected people can transmit the virus before showing symptoms themselves ?
What is the true death rate ?
Although ninety-nine per cent of the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the roughly fourteen hundred deaths reported so far have occurred in China , that will change .
It is impossible to know the number of people who left Wuhan , a city with eleven million residents , before the Chinese authorities closed it off .
Nor do we know how many people boarded planes without knowing that they were carrying the virus .
We will only be sure where they all went when they start to get sick .
The virus is so deeply menacing that , this week , the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the names of people , geographic locations , or even animal species , which could lead to racial attacks and the needless slaughter of animals .
Despite its severity , however , there is almost nothing surprising about this pandemic .
It has been utterly predictable in nearly every way : from the nature of its emergence , to its rapid international dissemination , to its clear potential to sicken people and kill them .
What is surprising is the fact that we are not better prepared for this kind of assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biologist Joshua Lederberg put it , in what is perhaps both his most famous and his most ignored warning , viruses pose “ the single biggest threat to man ’ s continued dominance on this planet.
” As the world learned in 1918 , when influenza killed at least fifty million people , there is no weapon as lethal that is also as widespread .
Moreover , these viral invasions often move in obvious , specific patterns .
No one who has ever glanced at a textbook on emerging infectious diseases or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section of a newspaper , could have been surprised to learn that bats were the original host of this virus , or that humans almost certainly acquired it from an intermediary species—in this case , probably pangolins , which are thought to be the most heavily trafficked animals on Earth .
Pangolins are prized for the supposed medicinal properties of their scales , and they appear to have been sold at the seafood market in Wuhan where the epidemic appears to have started .
Infectious diseases that leap from animals to humans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
Most people remember the worldwide panic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , or SARS , which , in 2002 , led to the first pandemic of the millennium—although its global death toll was seven hundred and seventy-four people , fewer than the number of people who die in an average week at the height of an annual flu season in the United States .
The SARS virus , which also originated in China , passed to humans through a protein—ACE-2 , or angiotensinconverting enzyme—that is found on respiratory cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point for the COVID-19 virus .
They are both coronaviruses—named for the halo you see around them under a microscope—are genetically similar , and were isolated in bats .
The same was true for MERS , or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome , a coronavirus that began in 2012 and spread through Saudi Arabia .
MERS was transmitted to humans via camels , but it originated in bats , as did the Ebola virus .
Marburg , a deadly hemorrhagic virus that was first described in 1967 , originated in Old World fruit bats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant role in the transmission of these viruses is not difficult to understand .
Bats make up roughly twenty per cent of all mammal species , and many of them have unusually robust immune systems that seem easily able to defend them against powerful viruses .
That makes them the perfect viral host ; the viruses train themselves on the bats ’ immune system , and , in the process , become increasingly able to defend themselves .
Yet bats are hardly the only host of viruses that infect humans .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avian influenza , H5N1 , which occurs naturally in wild waterfowl but can spread easily to domestic poultry , leaped from chickens to humans , setting off a frightening epidemic .
In 2009 , the new strain of influenza was a form of H1N1 , also called swine flu , because it passed to humans through pigs ; they serve as a common mixing vessel for viruses , because porcine respiratory cells are similar to ours .
The chances that a spillover , as this kind of transmission is called , will occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routine contact between animals and humans , such as the live-animal markets that are common in East Asia .
If an infected pig were to sneeze in a crowded open market , it could , in theory , infect a human and set off an epidemic .
Sixty per cent of the world ’ s people live in Asia .
There are a hundred and thirteen million people in Guangdong Province alone—far more than the population of any Western European country .
These viruses all pose special threats because they are new , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend against them .
The 2009 H1N1 epidemic infected at least 1.4 billion people , most of them before vaccines or treatments for the virus were available .
And that was in a year when , by most accounts , the W.H.O .
moved as expeditiously as it ever has .
That strain of influenza killed as many as two hundred thousand people in the world—but it could have been many times worse .
In 1957 , for example , the Asian flu pandemic killed more than a million people .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed between one and four million .
Maybe we will also be lucky this year .
( It ought to be remembered that , even now , the seasonal flu poses a much greater threat to the health of the average American . )
Unless COVID-19 proves to be uniquely virulent , it will likely subside within a few months , and the danger it poses will be substantially forgotten , like that of SARS , MERS , avian influenza , and other zoonotic diseases .
But it is too soon to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great speed to stop this pandemic .
They sequenced the virus in less than two weeks—an essential step in creating diagnostics , drugs , and vaccines , and one that only a few years ago would have taken months .
But , even with expedited trials and drug development , it could take a year to create a vaccine .
If this virus were to swerve out of control before then , the death rate could soar .
In addition to the human toll , the economic damage to China—and , eventually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous .
Industrial supply chains throughout the world have already been badly disrupted .
Travel to and from China has all but stopped , and xenophobic attacks against Asians are rising .
Although New York City has not reported a single confirmed case of COVID-19 , business in Chinatown has reportedly fallen by more than fifty per cent since the epidemic began .

It’s hard to predict the trajectory or the ultimate death toll of a viral bomb without knowing precisely how it was launched. As the coronavirus that was identified in Wuhan, China, in late December, continues to race around the globe, scientists are struggling to answer many vital questions: How easily does it spread from person to person? What is the real incubation period—the time during which infected people can transmit the virus before showing symptoms themselves? What is the true death rate?
Although ninety-nine per cent of the more than sixty-three thousand cases and nearly all of the roughly fourteen hundred deaths reported so far have occurred in China, that will change. It is impossible to know the number of people who left Wuhan, a city with eleven million residents, before the Chinese authorities closed it off. Nor do we know how many people boarded planes without knowing that they were carrying the virus. We will only be sure where they all went when they start to get sick. The virus is so deeply menacing that, this week, the World Health Organization carefully named it COVID-19—to avoid using the names of people, geographic locations, or even animal species, which could lead to racial attacks and the needless slaughter of animals.
Despite its severity, however, there is almost nothing surprising about this pandemic. It has been utterly predictable in nearly every way: from the nature of its emergence, to its rapid international dissemination, to its clear potential to sicken people and kill them. What is surprising is the fact that we are not better prepared for this kind of assault. As the late Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Joshua Lederberg put it, in what is perhaps both his most famous and his most ignored warning, viruses pose “the single biggest threat to man’s continued dominance on this planet.” As the world learned in 1918, when influenza killed at least fifty million people, there is no weapon as lethal that is also as widespread.
Moreover, these viral invasions often move in obvious, specific patterns. No one who has ever glanced at a textbook on emerging infectious diseases or, for that matter, read the science section of a newspaper, could have been surprised to learn that bats were the original host of this virus, or that humans almost certainly acquired it from an intermediary species—in this case, probably pangolins, which are thought to be the most heavily trafficked animals on Earth. Pangolins are prized for the supposed medicinal properties of their scales, and they appear to have been sold at the seafood market in Wuhan where the epidemic appears to have started.
Infectious diseases that leap from animals to humans are called zoonoses. They do it all the time. Most people remember the worldwide panic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, which, in 2002, led to the first pandemic of the millennium—although its global death toll was seven hundred and seventy-four people, fewer than the number of people who die in an average week at the height of an annual flu season in the United States. The SARS virus, which also originated in China, passed to humans through a protein—ACE-2, or angiotensinconverting enzyme—that is found on respiratory cells, which also serve as an entry point for the COVID-19 virus. They are both coronaviruses—named for the halo you see around them under a microscope—are genetically similar, and were isolated in bats. The same was true for MERS, or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, a coronavirus that began in 2012 and spread through Saudi Arabia. MERS was transmitted to humans via camels, but it originated in bats, as did the Ebola virus. Marburg, a deadly hemorrhagic virus that was first described in 1967, originated in Old World fruit bats.
The reason that bats play such a significant role in the transmission of these viruses is not difficult to understand. Bats make up roughly twenty per cent of all mammal species, and many of them have unusually robust immune systems that seem easily able to defend them against powerful viruses. That makes them the perfect viral host; the viruses train themselves on the bats’ immune system, and, in the process, become increasingly able to defend themselves. Yet bats are hardly the only host of viruses that infect humans. In 2004, a highly pathogenic form of avian influenza, H5N1, which occurs naturally in wild waterfowl but can spread easily to domestic poultry, leaped from chickens to humans, setting off a frightening epidemic. In 2009, the new strain of influenza was a form of H1N1, also called swine flu, because it passed to humans through pigs; they serve as a common mixing vessel for viruses, because porcine respiratory cells are similar to ours.
The chances that a spillover, as this kind of transmission is called, will occur are greater in places where there is routine contact between animals and humans, such as the live-animal markets that are common in East Asia. If an infected pig were to sneeze in a crowded open market, it could, in theory, infect a human and set off an epidemic. Sixty per cent of the world’s people live in Asia. There are a hundred and thirteen million people in Guangdong Province alone—far more than the population of any Western European country.
These viruses all pose special threats because they are new, which means that humans have no antibodies to defend against them. The 2009 H1N1 epidemic infected at least 1.4 billion people, most of them before vaccines or treatments for the virus were available. And that was in a year when, by most accounts, the W.H.O. moved as expeditiously as it ever has. That strain of influenza killed as many as two hundred thousand people in the world—but it could have been many times worse. In 1957, for example, the Asian flu pandemic killed more than a million people. In 1968, the Hong Kong flu pandemic killed between one and four million. Maybe we will also be lucky this year. (It ought to be remembered that, even now, the seasonal flu poses a much greater threat to the health of the average American.) Unless COVID-19 proves to be uniquely virulent, it will likely subside within a few months, and the danger it poses will be substantially forgotten, like that of SARS, MERS, avian influenza, and other zoonotic diseases. But it is too soon to know for certain.
Scientists are moving with great speed to stop this pandemic. They sequenced the virus in less than two weeks—an essential step in creating diagnostics, drugs, and vaccines, and one that only a few years ago would have taken months. But, even with expedited trials and drug development, it could take a year to create a vaccine. If this virus were to swerve out of control before then, the death rate could soar. In addition to the human toll, the economic damage to China—and, eventually, to the rest of the world—would be enormous. Industrial supply chains throughout the world have already been badly disrupted. Travel to and from China has all but stopped, and xenophobic attacks against Asians are rising. Although New York City has not reported a single confirmed case of COVID-19, business in Chinatown has reportedly fallen by more than fifty per cent since the epidemic began.
Not all of this has to happen; we can do a much better job of preparing for these epidemics, just as we no longer wait to have heart attacks before we use our knowledge to limit their risk. Prevention works, and it can work with viral epidemics. For now we can be much more vigilant about improving sanitary conditions and regulating livestock in the kinds of markets where outbreaks are likely to occur. Sufficient and reliable tests for people who may have been exposed must be made readily available. There are scores of similar viruses found in host reservoirs—most notably, bats. Many of those viruses have genetic similarity to this coronavirus, and also to SARS and MERS. The time has come to use the modern tools of molecular and synthetic biology to make drugs and vaccines to protect us from them. We can make DNA vaccines in laboratories and store them as spare parts, just as we do with parts for a phone or a laptop. Why not work on making vaccines that would protect broadly against this entire class of virus rather than waiting for each one to attack us and then try to fight back? Today, with the annual flu, we grow most of our vaccines in eggs, just as we have for decades. It’s time to move on.


newyorker--2020-02-15--“Downhill,” Reviewed: An Inert Remake of “Force Majeure”

The incoherence of “ Downhill , ” the remake , by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash , of the Swedish director Ruben Östlund ’ s 2014 drama “ Force Majeure , ” is evident from the start .
An American family , the Stantons—Billie ( Julia Louis-Dreyfus ) and Pete ( Will Ferrell ) , and their young sons , Finn ( Julian Grey ) and Emerson ( Ammon Jacob Ford ) —arrive at an Austrian ski resort .
As they disembark from their tour bus , Billie notices that there are no other children among the swarm of vacationers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greeted by Charlotte ( Miranda Otto ) , a pushily enthusiastic Austrian host who , asked about the clientele , informs the Stantons that it ’ s not a place for children but , rather , “ the Ibiza of the Alps , ” a pleasure dome for adults where she , flamboyantly libertine , intends to make sure that Billie and Pete get some of the pleasure .
( She displays her intentions quickly , giving Billie a pair of hearty kisses on the cheek and , accidentally on purpose , giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who planned this trip ?
The movie is set in the present day , not in the pre-Internet age of word-of-mouth and published guidebooks .
Pete is a real-estate executive ; Billie is an attorney .
It seems likely that they ’ d have researched their destination at least a little bit before booking it .
In short , the very premise sets up such bewildering and undeveloped practicalities ( Did Pete take charge and leave Billie out of the loop ?
Did he lie ? )
that the movie is nearly over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pete is on his cell phone when the Stantons get off the bus ( and Billie is reproaching him for being on it ) ; he ’ s texting his younger colleague , Zach ( Zach Woods ) , who is also on a European vacation—a spontaneous and impulsive one—with his similarly young girlfriend , Rosie ( Zoe Chao ) , whose free-spirited temperament is in brash evidence on their Instagram posts .
Pete seemingly envies his childless colleague ’ s unencumbered life style and openly affectionate relationship .
He also yearns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Billie that Zach is getting in touch with him when , in fact , it ’ s the reverse .
At Pete ’ s prompting , Zach and Rosie eventually shift their plans to join the Stantons .
This is all to say that the marriage of Billie and Pete is in trouble from the start , in ways that are both highly stereotypical and severely ill-defined .
The Stantons have no politics , no culture , no family background , no range of experience , no interests , no habits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no depth .
They are generic white upper-middle-class movie creatures , and Louis-Dreyfus and Ferrell are left to fill the emptiness of their roles with their own reserves of gesture and expression , empathy and curiosity .
The event that brings the couple ’ s relationship problems to a head is the same as in “ Force Majeure ” : while the family is sitting on an outdoor mountainside deck , a controlled avalanche sends snow barreling down the slope , apparently right at the deck , sparking panic among the vacationers—and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his phone and bolts , rather than staying at the table to try to protect his family .
( In “ Force Majeure , ” he records the avalanche ; in “ Downhill , ” he doesn ’ t . )
In both movies , the man ’ s seemingly instinctive display of cowardice proves instantly corrosive to the marriage .
Both films are variations on a theme by Ernest Hemingway—specifically , the one in “ The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber , ” a 1936 story ( originally published in Cosmopolitan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialites on a high-priced hunting trip in Africa , where Francis , in the presence of a charging lion , bolts , in full view of his wife , Margot ; the white hunter , Robert Wilson , who ’ s running the hunt ; and the local black men who are Wilson ’ s much-put-upon staff .
Hemingway ’ s story quickly and deeply parses the couple ’ s intimate secrets and those of their set , the institutional organization of rich people ’ s safaris and the staffers who work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage and the psychic overtones and romantic implications of both , not to mention even the inner lives of hunted and wounded animals .
( For the record , a far better cinematic drama than “ Force Majeure ” and “ Downhill , ” based on the same theme of Hemingway , is Julia Loktev ’ s 2011 drama “ The Loneliest Planet.
” ) There ’ s a mistaken notion , popular around Twitter , that “ Force Majeure ” is actually a comedy .
“ Force Majeure ” is a satire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more derisive than funny .
( It shares this quality with the films of Michael Haneke , whom Östlund often seems to be knocking off . )
“ Force Majeure ” masks its superficial and scattershot mockery of bourgeois moral conventions with a chilly style that leaves out his characters ’ individual traits , interests , inclinations , and desires , just as Faxon and Rash do .
In Östlund ’ s approach , however , that spare and rigid reserve is a meaningful mannerism—it plays the role of a faux objectivity that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity , masks his derision as analysis , masks his contempt as critique .
With “ Downhill , ” Faxon and Rash ( plus their co-writer Jesse Armstrong ) prismatically split “ Force Majeure ” into two distinct strands—the faux sociological critique becomes pure and harsh domestic melodrama , and the element of mockery becomes out-and-out antic comedy that ’ s applied to the story like goofy stickers .
The character of Charlotte tosses off heavily accented malapropisms ( informing the Stantons that they can get to the next town in “ minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European licentiousness ( describing sex as no more intimate than a handshake ) , and Billie ’ s effort at self-pleasuring in a public setting ends with pure though mild slapstick .
It ’ s the melodrama that ’ s the core of the film , however , and here Faxon and Rash lapse all the more grievously into flattening stereotypes .
So little is known of what ’ s going on between Billie and Pete , from the start of the film , that her contempt for Pete after his cowardly showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their marriage , the entire story .
When Pete returns to the table , finding Billie and the boys huddling in terror as the snow blows away , he compounds his act of cowardice with a double denial—refusing to admit that what they ’ d been through was anything serious or that he ’ d ditched the family and run .
This attempted gaslighting of his family gives rise to the one notable moment in the film , one in which the melodrama veers toward comedy and then sharply back into pathos—a scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of friends , calls on the boys to deliver their version of what Pete did during the avalanche .
It ’ s a moment that could have set the movie off in new and odd directions .
Instead , it stands apart and stands out as a mere plot point , one that is dropped as quickly as it ’ s presented .
( It pops up again later , similarly conveniently , briefly , and inconsequentially . )
The failure of Faxon and Rash mirrors that of Östlund in “ Force Majeure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can recognize and define characters by their type .
Just as the main dramatic moment in both films is a whiteout , with the screen ’ s details obliterated by a barrage of snow , the characters and the milieux that the “ Downhill ” filmmakers depict are similarly blanked out by a tightly controlled fabrication .
They know these people so well , so they think , that their familiarity breeds something as aesthetically dreadful as Östlund ’ s contempt : indifference .

The incoherence of “Downhill,” the remake, by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, of the Swedish director Ruben Östlund’s 2014 drama “Force Majeure,” is evident from the start. An American family, the Stantons—Billie (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Pete (Will Ferrell), and their young sons, Finn (Julian Grey) and Emerson (Ammon Jacob Ford)—arrive at an Austrian ski resort. As they disembark from their tour bus, Billie notices that there are no other children among the swarm of vacationers; moments later, they’re greeted by Charlotte (Miranda Otto), a pushily enthusiastic Austrian host who, asked about the clientele, informs the Stantons that it’s not a place for children but, rather, “the Ibiza of the Alps,” a pleasure dome for adults where she, flamboyantly libertine, intends to make sure that Billie and Pete get some of the pleasure. (She displays her intentions quickly, giving Billie a pair of hearty kisses on the cheek and, accidentally on purpose, giving Pete one on the lips.)
Who planned this trip? The movie is set in the present day, not in the pre-Internet age of word-of-mouth and published guidebooks. Pete is a real-estate executive; Billie is an attorney. It seems likely that they’d have researched their destination at least a little bit before booking it. In short, the very premise sets up such bewildering and undeveloped practicalities (Did Pete take charge and leave Billie out of the loop? Did he lie?) that the movie is nearly over by the time it’s begun.
Pete is on his cell phone when the Stantons get off the bus (and Billie is reproaching him for being on it); he’s texting his younger colleague, Zach (Zach Woods), who is also on a European vacation—a spontaneous and impulsive one—with his similarly young girlfriend, Rosie (Zoe Chao), whose free-spirited temperament is in brash evidence on their Instagram posts. Pete seemingly envies his childless colleague’s unencumbered life style and openly affectionate relationship. He also yearns for some guy-ish company and so lies to Billie that Zach is getting in touch with him when, in fact, it’s the reverse. At Pete’s prompting, Zach and Rosie eventually shift their plans to join the Stantons.
This is all to say that the marriage of Billie and Pete is in trouble from the start, in ways that are both highly stereotypical and severely ill-defined. The Stantons have no politics, no culture, no family background, no range of experience, no interests, no habits, no expressions, no style—no substance and no depth. They are generic white upper-middle-class movie creatures, and Louis-Dreyfus and Ferrell are left to fill the emptiness of their roles with their own reserves of gesture and expression, empathy and curiosity.
The event that brings the couple’s relationship problems to a head is the same as in “Force Majeure”: while the family is sitting on an outdoor mountainside deck, a controlled avalanche sends snow barreling down the slope, apparently right at the deck, sparking panic among the vacationers—and, in both films, the paterfamilias grabs his phone and bolts, rather than staying at the table to try to protect his family. (In “Force Majeure,” he records the avalanche; in “Downhill,” he doesn’t.) In both movies, the man’s seemingly instinctive display of cowardice proves instantly corrosive to the marriage.
Both films are variations on a theme by Ernest Hemingway—specifically, the one in “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” a 1936 story (originally published in Cosmopolitan) about a couple of rich American socialites on a high-priced hunting trip in Africa, where Francis, in the presence of a charging lion, bolts, in full view of his wife, Margot; the white hunter, Robert Wilson, who’s running the hunt; and the local black men who are Wilson’s much-put-upon staff. Hemingway’s story quickly and deeply parses the couple’s intimate secrets and those of their set, the institutional organization of rich people’s safaris and the staffers who work for them, the psychology of cowardice and courage and the psychic overtones and romantic implications of both, not to mention even the inner lives of hunted and wounded animals. (For the record, a far better cinematic drama than “Force Majeure” and “Downhill,” based on the same theme of Hemingway, is Julia Loktev’s 2011 drama “The Loneliest Planet.”)
There’s a mistaken notion, popular around Twitter, that “Force Majeure” is actually a comedy. “Force Majeure” is a satire, but its element of comedy is more derisive than funny. (It shares this quality with the films of Michael Haneke, whom Östlund often seems to be knocking off.) “Force Majeure” masks its superficial and scattershot mockery of bourgeois moral conventions with a chilly style that leaves out his characters’ individual traits, interests, inclinations, and desires, just as Faxon and Rash do. In Östlund’s approach, however, that spare and rigid reserve is a meaningful mannerism—it plays the role of a faux objectivity that masks the filmmaker’s facility as clarity, masks his derision as analysis, masks his contempt as critique.
With “Downhill,” Faxon and Rash (plus their co-writer Jesse Armstrong) prismatically split “Force Majeure” into two distinct strands—the faux sociological critique becomes pure and harsh domestic melodrama, and the element of mockery becomes out-and-out antic comedy that’s applied to the story like goofy stickers. The character of Charlotte tosses off heavily accented malapropisms (informing the Stantons that they can get to the next town in “minutes of twenty”) along with stereotypical European licentiousness (describing sex as no more intimate than a handshake), and Billie’s effort at self-pleasuring in a public setting ends with pure though mild slapstick.
It’s the melodrama that’s the core of the film, however, and here Faxon and Rash lapse all the more grievously into flattening stereotypes. So little is known of what’s going on between Billie and Pete, from the start of the film, that her contempt for Pete after his cowardly showing is, rather than an element in their marriage, the entire story. When Pete returns to the table, finding Billie and the boys huddling in terror as the snow blows away, he compounds his act of cowardice with a double denial—refusing to admit that what they’d been through was anything serious or that he’d ditched the family and run. This attempted gaslighting of his family gives rise to the one notable moment in the film, one in which the melodrama veers toward comedy and then sharply back into pathos—a scene in which Billie, in the presence of friends, calls on the boys to deliver their version of what Pete did during the avalanche.
It’s a moment that could have set the movie off in new and odd directions. Instead, it stands apart and stands out as a mere plot point, one that is dropped as quickly as it’s presented. (It pops up again later, similarly conveniently, briefly, and inconsequentially.) The failure of Faxon and Rash mirrors that of Östlund in “Force Majeure”: a too-easy sense that they can recognize and define characters by their type. Just as the main dramatic moment in both films is a whiteout, with the screen’s details obliterated by a barrage of snow, the characters and the milieux that the “Downhill” filmmakers depict are similarly blanked out by a tightly controlled fabrication. They know these people so well, so they think, that their familiarity breeds something as aesthetically dreadful as Östlund’s contempt: indifference.