newyorker--2020-02-05--The Seriousness of George Steiner

The Seriousness of George Steiner

The word “ awesome ” is most easily used by adolescents these days , but the range of learning that the critic and novelist George Steiner possessed was awesome in the old-fashioned , grown-up sense : truly , genuinely awe-inspiring .
Steiner , who died on Monday , at the age of ninety , knew modern languages , ancient languages , classical literature , and modern literature .
He had memorized the rhymes of Racine and he could elucidate the puns in Joyce and he could tell you why both were , in his thorny but not cheaply won view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was what many people call a human encyclopedia—not in the American sense , a blank vault of facts , but in the French Enlightenment one : a critical repository of significant knowledge .
His long book reviews for this magazine , written over thirty years , from 1966 to 1997 , were dotted with allusions of the kind that a naturally horizontal thinker couldn ’ t help but include .
But they were never imposed or forced—his mind truly , on its way to Borges , passed through Sophocles and stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view at Heidegger .
Steiner was a lifelong traveller of those routes .
“ Pretentious , ” though a word journalists sometimes used to describe him , was the last thing he ever was .
He was never pretending .
He was a humanities faculty in himself , an academy of one .
And how many and how wide his subjects were : Lévi-Strauss , Cellini , Bernhard , Chardin , Mandelstam , Kafka , Cardinal Newman , Verdi , Gogol , Borges , Brecht , Wittgenstein , Montale , Liszt , Koestler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the connoisseurship ( and craven Stalinism ) of Anthony Blunt .
( And that ’ s mostly one collection . )
He was not , to be sure , a High and Low guy ; he did not cheerfully follow up his essay on Levi-Strauss ’ s conception of the raw and the cooked with another essay filled with recipes on how to cook the raw .
But that was not the moral manner of his generation ; born in 1929 , he was of the High and Higher and ever Higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however fragile the belief might seem , in the power of serious art to redeem life .
Though not , to be sure , to redeem the world .
Steiner ’ s seriousness was significantly disrupted by the Holocaust , which he understood to be the central event of modern times .
( His family had fled Vienna shortly before the worst began . )
It was part of the genuine , and not merely patrician , seriousness of his view to see the war years as a fundamental rupture not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture : educated people did those things to other educated people .
It was not ignorant armies clashing by night that shivered George Steiner ’ s soul ; it was intelligent Germans who listened to Schubert murdering educated Jews who had trusted in Goethe , and by the train load .
This recognition of the limits of culture to change the world was the limiting condition on his love of literature , and it was what gave that love a darker and more tragic cast than any mere proselytizing for “ great books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s death , the obituarists have rightly reminded readers of his big books—massive tomes , as they were once called .
His study of language “ After Babel ” and his daunting but in its way astounding novel “ The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. ” are perhaps the likeliest to go on being read , or at least remembered .
But what is perhaps worth savoring at the moment of his passing is a fact belied by all these credentials .
Though he held many academic postings , at Harvard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never entirely at home in the academy .
He had no “ school ” and no acolytes , just readers .
What was astonishing , given how fully he was committed to a demanding standard of literature , was how fully he committed as well to a popular role—one might almost call it , even if he would have cringed at the turn , a middlebrow role .
His presence in the academy , though constant , was accented by his even larger presence in the journals and magazines , like this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At a time when most critical writers sought either , in the academy , to be entertainingly obscure or else , in popular pages , to be obscurely entertaining , he sought instead always to be earnest and enlightening .
Steiner challenged his readers but never condescended to them .
He assumed that they cared as much as he did .
He was the real thing , the last of the great middle-European intellectual journeyers , one with Benjamin and Cioran and the other exiles , for whom books were the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life and death .
With him gone , we can only reread his writing , determined to honor the intensity of his commitment by intensifying our own .

The word “awesome” is most easily used by adolescents these days, but the range of learning that the critic and novelist George Steiner possessed was awesome in the old-fashioned, grown-up sense: truly, genuinely awe-inspiring. Steiner, who died on Monday, at the age of ninety, knew modern languages, ancient languages, classical literature, and modern literature. He had memorized the rhymes of Racine and he could elucidate the puns in Joyce and he could tell you why both were, in his thorny but not cheaply won view, superior to the prolixities of Shakespeare. He was what many people call a human encyclopedia—not in the American sense, a blank vault of facts, but in the French Enlightenment one: a critical repository of significant knowledge. His long book reviews for this magazine, written over thirty years, from 1966 to 1997, were dotted with allusions of the kind that a naturally horizontal thinker couldn’t help but include. But they were never imposed or forced—his mind truly, on its way to Borges, passed through Sophocles and stopped for a moment to take in the view at Heidegger. Steiner was a lifelong traveller of those routes. “Pretentious,” though a word journalists sometimes used to describe him, was the last thing he ever was. He was never pretending. He was a humanities faculty in himself, an academy of one.
And how many and how wide his subjects were: Lévi-Strauss, Cellini, Bernhard, Chardin, Mandelstam, Kafka, Cardinal Newman, Verdi, Gogol, Borges, Brecht, Wittgenstein, Montale, Liszt, Koestler, the linguistics of Noam Chomsky, and the connoisseurship (and craven Stalinism) of Anthony Blunt. (And that’s mostly one collection.) He was not, to be sure, a High and Low guy; he did not cheerfully follow up his essay on Levi-Strauss’s conception of the raw and the cooked with another essay filled with recipes on how to cook the raw. But that was not the moral manner of his generation; born in 1929, he was of the High and Higher and ever Higher kind, the kind who passionately believed, however fragile the belief might seem, in the power of serious art to redeem life.
Though not, to be sure, to redeem the world. Steiner’s seriousness was significantly disrupted by the Holocaust, which he understood to be the central event of modern times. (His family had fled Vienna shortly before the worst began.) It was part of the genuine, and not merely patrician, seriousness of his view to see the war years as a fundamental rupture not just in history but in our faith in culture: educated people did those things to other educated people. It was not ignorant armies clashing by night that shivered George Steiner’s soul; it was intelligent Germans who listened to Schubert murdering educated Jews who had trusted in Goethe, and by the train load. This recognition of the limits of culture to change the world was the limiting condition on his love of literature, and it was what gave that love a darker and more tragic cast than any mere proselytizing for “great books” could supply.
With Steiner’s death, the obituarists have rightly reminded readers of his big books—massive tomes, as they were once called. His study of language “After Babel” and his daunting but in its way astounding novel “The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.” are perhaps the likeliest to go on being read, or at least remembered. But what is perhaps worth savoring at the moment of his passing is a fact belied by all these credentials. Though he held many academic postings, at Harvard and Cambridge, among others, Steiner was never entirely at home in the academy. He had no “school” and no acolytes, just readers. What was astonishing, given how fully he was committed to a demanding standard of literature, was how fully he committed as well to a popular role—one might almost call it, even if he would have cringed at the turn, a middlebrow role. His presence in the academy, though constant, was accented by his even larger presence in the journals and magazines, like this one, that he graced with his learning. At a time when most critical writers sought either, in the academy, to be entertainingly obscure or else, in popular pages, to be obscurely entertaining, he sought instead always to be earnest and enlightening.
Steiner challenged his readers but never condescended to them. He assumed that they cared as much as he did. He was the real thing, the last of the great middle-European intellectual journeyers, one with Benjamin and Cioran and the other exiles, for whom books were the one constant country and reading them a matter of life and death. With him gone, we can only reread his writing, determined to honor the intensity of his commitment by intensifying our own.


newyorker--2020-02-05--Buttigieg and Sanders Both Have Reasons To Celebrate the Partial Iowa-Caucus Results

At lunchtime on Tuesday , Bernie Sanders spoke with reporters on his campaign plane , which was on its way to New Hampshire .
“ This was not a good night for democracy , ” the senator said .
That was the understatement of the year .
At five o ’ clock in the afternoon , the Iowa Democratic Party finally released some results from Monday ’ s caucus , which showed Pete Buttigieg running slightly ahead of Sanders in the delegate count , and Sanders running slightly ahead of Buttigieg in the popular vote .
The two sets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa ’ s precincts , however , and risked adding to the confusion .
In Polk County alone , there were eighty-two precincts that hadn ’ t reported any votes at all , according to the Times .
In the partial results , Buttigieg had accumulated 26.9 per cent of state delegate equivalents , and Sanders had 25.2 per cent .
On this basis , Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , speaking in New Hampshire , hailed “ an astonishing victory for this campaign.
” In terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trailing Sanders by 1,184 votes , prompting some backers of the Vermont senator to declare victory , too .
The Sanders campaign itself was more circumspect .
Jeff Weaver , a senior Sanders-campaign adviser , said , in a statement , “ We are gratified that in the partial data released so far it ’ s clear that in the first and second round more people voted for Bernie than any other candidate in the field.
” In a caucus setting , the delegate count can differ from the popular vote because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also because of the realignment of votes from candidates that don ’ t meet the threshold for viability .
With so many votes still not reported , the most important learning from the figures that were released is that Buttigieg and Sanders separated themselves from the rest of the field .
The results showed a significant drop from Buttigieg and Sanders to Elizabeth Warren , who was in third place , with 18.3 per cent of the state delegate equivalents ; Joe Biden , who was in fourth , with 15.6 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fifth , with 12.6 per cent .
Regardless of all the chaos , therefore , Buttigieg and Sanders both have grounds for celebration .
In recent weeks , the former mayor of South Bend had seen his poll ratings dip as he clashed with Warren and came under attack from activist groups .
Having staked everything on Iowa , he badly needed a good result there , and he got one .
The partial results showed that his support was spread across the state , encompassing urban , suburban , and rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could appeal to many different types of Democrats , and also to independents and “ future former Republicans.
” In these polarized times , Buttigieg is something of a Presidential throwback : a young , hyper-articulate , center-left Democrat who hails from the middle of the country .
Will he be able to surge in New Hampshire , where he has been in fourth place in the polls ?
And can he broaden his appeal to minority voters , who will play a key role in Nevada and South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Sanders , many analysts have long underestimated him .
The Iowa vote confirmed that his populist , anti-establishment platform resonates strongly .
“ The message that Iowa has sent to the nation is that we want a government that represents all of us , not just wealthy campaign contributors and the one per cent , ” he said on Monday night .
Importantly , and unlike in 2016 , Sanders has also made a determined effort to broaden his appeal beyond economic populism .
From the beginning , his campaign sought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Native American , and L.G.B.T.Q .
voters , which are all important parts of the Democratic Party .
These efforts are now paying off , although Sanders did concede that he was disappointed in the Iowa turnout , which appears to have been lower than expected .
One question now is whether all the disarray surrounding the result will reduce the bounce that winners in Iowa traditionally enjoy .
With just forty-one pledged delegates up for grabs , out of a total of nearly four thousand , the Iowa caucus carries little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It matters primarily because of its impact on the campaign narrative , which can influence voter enthusiasm , media coverage , and fund-raising .
In this instance , the central narrative coming out of Iowa in the twenty-four hours after the caucus was one of delay , dysfunction , and uncertainty .
Commenting on CNN , David Axelrod , Barack Obama ’ s former chief campaign strategist , noted that Buttigieg had been hoping to cannon into New Hampshire , but in the end “ it was a pop gun , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” About the only Presidential candidates who stand to benefit from the chaos are Michael Bloomberg , who is sitting out the first four Democratic contests , and Donald Trump , who is busy gloating about the Democrats ’ troubles .
On Tuesday , Bloomberg “ authorized his campaign team to double his spending on television commercials in every market where he is currently advertising , ” the Times reported .
Trump tweeted , “ The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster .
Nothing works , just like they ran the Country.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the preliminary results from Iowa was Biden ’ s poor showing .
For months , the former Vice-President ’ s campaign had been downplaying expectations for Iowa , where the electorate is whiter than the national average .
( Biden does best among older and nonwhite voters . )
If the final result matches the partial ones , there is no way to sugarcoat what happened on Monday .
During the run-up to the caucus , Biden was in second place in the Real Clear Politics poll average for Iowa , ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak fourth place is an alarming result for someone who has been leading the national polls since before he entered the race last year .
Among political operatives , there has long been a theory that Biden ’ s national support could crater after a weak performance in Iowa .
Between now and the South Carolina primary , on February 29th , that theory will be tested .
Rising above the individual candidates , the partial results from Iowa showed a fairly even split between the Democratic Party ’ s progressive and moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren , and Yang , who supports a universal basic income , with 51,821 votes between them .
Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar have 54,894 votes combined .
The caucus did illustrate a yawning age gap .
Among caucus-goers between the ages of seventeen and twenty-nine , forty-eight per cent voted for Sanders , and just three per cent voted for Biden , according to an NBC News entrance poll .
Among voters sixty-five and older , the pattern flipped : Biden led the field , with thirty-three per cent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buttigieg and Warren managed to straddle the age divide , but neither of them attracted nearly as many young voters as Sanders or as many old voters as Biden .
These numbers point to a protracted and competitive primary , which could end in a contested convention .
There is a long , long way to go before the outcome is decided .
Hopefully , the rest of the contest will go more smoothly .

At lunchtime on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders spoke with reporters on his campaign plane, which was on its way to New Hampshire. “This was not a good night for democracy,” the senator said. That was the understatement of the year. At five o’clock in the afternoon, the Iowa Democratic Party finally released some results from Monday’s caucus, which showed Pete Buttigieg running slightly ahead of Sanders in the delegate count, and Sanders running slightly ahead of Buttigieg in the popular vote. The two sets of figures covered only sixty-two per cent of Iowa’s precincts, however, and risked adding to the confusion. In Polk County alone, there were eighty-two precincts that hadn’t reported any votes at all, according to the Times.
In the partial results, Buttigieg had accumulated 26.9 per cent of state delegate equivalents, and Sanders had 25.2 per cent. On this basis, Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, speaking in New Hampshire, hailed “an astonishing victory for this campaign.” In terms of raw votes, however, Buttigieg was trailing Sanders by 1,184 votes, prompting some backers of the Vermont senator to declare victory, too. The Sanders campaign itself was more circumspect. Jeff Weaver, a senior Sanders-campaign adviser, said, in a statement, “We are gratified that in the partial data released so far it’s clear that in the first and second round more people voted for Bernie than any other candidate in the field.”
In a caucus setting, the delegate count can differ from the popular vote because of differences in the sizes of precincts and also because of the realignment of votes from candidates that don’t meet the threshold for viability. With so many votes still not reported, the most important learning from the figures that were released is that Buttigieg and Sanders separated themselves from the rest of the field. The results showed a significant drop from Buttigieg and Sanders to Elizabeth Warren, who was in third place, with 18.3 per cent of the state delegate equivalents; Joe Biden, who was in fourth, with 15.6 per cent; and Amy Klobuchar, who was in fifth, with 12.6 per cent.
Regardless of all the chaos, therefore, Buttigieg and Sanders both have grounds for celebration. In recent weeks, the former mayor of South Bend had seen his poll ratings dip as he clashed with Warren and came under attack from activist groups. Having staked everything on Iowa, he badly needed a good result there, and he got one. The partial results showed that his support was spread across the state, encompassing urban, suburban, and rural precincts. Buttigieg said the result demonstrated that he could appeal to many different types of Democrats, and also to independents and “future former Republicans.”
In these polarized times, Buttigieg is something of a Presidential throwback: a young, hyper-articulate, center-left Democrat who hails from the middle of the country. Will he be able to surge in New Hampshire, where he has been in fourth place in the polls? And can he broaden his appeal to minority voters, who will play a key role in Nevada and South Carolina, and also on Super Tuesday?
As for Sanders, many analysts have long underestimated him. The Iowa vote confirmed that his populist, anti-establishment platform resonates strongly. “The message that Iowa has sent to the nation is that we want a government that represents all of us, not just wealthy campaign contributors and the one per cent,” he said on Monday night. Importantly, and unlike in 2016, Sanders has also made a determined effort to broaden his appeal beyond economic populism. From the beginning, his campaign sought to deepen its links with black, Latino, Native American, and L.G.B.T.Q. voters, which are all important parts of the Democratic Party. These efforts are now paying off, although Sanders did concede that he was disappointed in the Iowa turnout, which appears to have been lower than expected.
One question now is whether all the disarray surrounding the result will reduce the bounce that winners in Iowa traditionally enjoy. With just forty-one pledged delegates up for grabs, out of a total of nearly four thousand, the Iowa caucus carries little mathematical weight in the over-all Democratic primary. It matters primarily because of its impact on the campaign narrative, which can influence voter enthusiasm, media coverage, and fund-raising. In this instance, the central narrative coming out of Iowa in the twenty-four hours after the caucus was one of delay, dysfunction, and uncertainty. Commenting on CNN, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s former chief campaign strategist, noted that Buttigieg had been hoping to cannon into New Hampshire, but in the end “it was a pop gun, because we didn’t get the results.”
About the only Presidential candidates who stand to benefit from the chaos are Michael Bloomberg, who is sitting out the first four Democratic contests, and Donald Trump, who is busy gloating about the Democrats’ troubles. On Tuesday, Bloomberg “authorized his campaign team to double his spending on television commercials in every market where he is currently advertising,” the Times reported. Trump tweeted, “The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country.”
The other big story coming out of the preliminary results from Iowa was Biden’s poor showing. For months, the former Vice-President’s campaign had been downplaying expectations for Iowa, where the electorate is whiter than the national average. (Biden does best among older and nonwhite voters.) If the final result matches the partial ones, there is no way to sugarcoat what happened on Monday. During the run-up to the caucus, Biden was in second place in the Real Clear Politics poll average for Iowa, ahead of Buttigieg. To tumble to a projected weak fourth place is an alarming result for someone who has been leading the national polls since before he entered the race last year. Among political operatives, there has long been a theory that Biden’s national support could crater after a weak performance in Iowa. Between now and the South Carolina primary, on February 29th, that theory will be tested.
Rising above the individual candidates, the partial results from Iowa showed a fairly even split between the Democratic Party’s progressive and moderate wings. The preliminary tally shows Sanders, Warren, and Yang, who supports a universal basic income, with 51,821 votes between them. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have 54,894 votes combined.
The caucus did illustrate a yawning age gap. Among caucus-goers between the ages of seventeen and twenty-nine, forty-eight per cent voted for Sanders, and just three per cent voted for Biden, according to an NBC News entrance poll. Among voters sixty-five and older, the pattern flipped: Biden led the field, with thirty-three per cent, and Sanders got just four per cent. Buttigieg and Warren managed to straddle the age divide, but neither of them attracted nearly as many young voters as Sanders or as many old voters as Biden.
These numbers point to a protracted and competitive primary, which could end in a contested convention. There is a long, long way to go before the outcome is decided. Hopefully, the rest of the contest will go more smoothly.


newyorker--2020-02-05--Watch Live: Donald Trump Delivers the 2020 State of the Union Address

On Tuesday evening , a day after technical difficulties delayed the Democratic Iowa-caucus results and a day before the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to vote to acquit the President in his impeachment trial , Donald Trump will head to Capitol Hill to deliver his State of the Union address .
Trump will become the second President in U.S. history to present the annual speech , called for in Article II of the Constitution , amid impeachment proceedings .
In 1999 , President Bill Clinton became the first , delivering his State of the Union address just a month after he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the course of Clinton ’ s seventy-seven-minute speech , he never directly mentioned his impeachment trial .
Republican senators , including Lindsey Graham , of South Carolina , and Marco Rubio , of Florida , are urging President Trump to follow Clinton ’ s example by leaving the impeachment proceedings , and their anticipated outcome , out of his speech .
“ We ’ ve been talking about it for so long .
I think he needs to stick with the agenda and he ’ ll do quite well , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The timing of the President ’ s State of the Union address last year was also dramatic .
The speech was rescheduled after a protracted government shutdown over border-wall funding led Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to revoke the President ’ s invitation to address Congress within the House chamber .
Writing for The New Yorker , Benjamin Wallace-Wells called the 2019 speech a “ dud , ” and Susan B. Glasser wrote , “ As a speech , it was utterly forgettable.
” Last year , Trump delivered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats were buzzing with energy , fresh from the 2018 midterms , in which Democrats won the House and delivered a freshman class of young women to the Party ’ s caucus .
This year , the energy in the room is likely to be significantly less exuberant , as Democrats grapple with an anticlimactic Iowa caucus and look ahead to the expected final day of the Senate impeachment trial .
Governor Gretchen Whitmer , of Michigan , will deliver the Democrats ’ response to the State of the Union from East Lansing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes .
Whitmer won her gubernatorial race during the 2018 midterms , in a swing state that Democrats lost in 2016 and hope to win in 2020 .
Representative Veronica Escobar , of Texas , will deliver a rebuttal to the President ’ s speech , in Spanish , from a community health center in El Paso .
Escobar rose to prominence in 2019 as an outspoken critic of the Trump Administration ’ s border policies and anti-immigrant rhetoric when a deadly mass shooting targeted Latinos at an El Paso Walmart .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the live stream above .

On Tuesday evening, a day after technical difficulties delayed the Democratic Iowa-caucus results and a day before the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to vote to acquit the President in his impeachment trial, Donald Trump will head to Capitol Hill to deliver his State of the Union address. Trump will become the second President in U.S. history to present the annual speech, called for in Article II of the Constitution, amid impeachment proceedings. In 1999, President Bill Clinton became the first, delivering his State of the Union address just a month after he was impeached by the House of Representatives. In the course of Clinton’s seventy-seven-minute speech, he never directly mentioned his impeachment trial. Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio, of Florida, are urging President Trump to follow Clinton’s example by leaving the impeachment proceedings, and their anticipated outcome, out of his speech. “We’ve been talking about it for so long. I think he needs to stick with the agenda and he’ll do quite well,” Senator Mike Braun, of Indiana, said.
The timing of the President’s State of the Union address last year was also dramatic. The speech was rescheduled after a protracted government shutdown over border-wall funding led Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to revoke the President’s invitation to address Congress within the House chamber. Writing for The New Yorker, Benjamin Wallace-Wells called the 2019 speech a “dud,” and Susan B. Glasser wrote, “As a speech, it was utterly forgettable.” Last year, Trump delivered his speech to a Congress in which the Democrats were buzzing with energy, fresh from the 2018 midterms, in which Democrats won the House and delivered a freshman class of young women to the Party’s caucus. This year, the energy in the room is likely to be significantly less exuberant, as Democrats grapple with an anticlimactic Iowa caucus and look ahead to the expected final day of the Senate impeachment trial.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer, of Michigan, will deliver the Democrats’ response to the State of the Union from East Lansing High School, where her daughters attend classes. Whitmer won her gubernatorial race during the 2018 midterms, in a swing state that Democrats lost in 2016 and hope to win in 2020. Representative Veronica Escobar, of Texas, will deliver a rebuttal to the President’s speech, in Spanish, from a community health center in El Paso. Escobar rose to prominence in 2019 as an outspoken critic of the Trump Administration’s border policies and anti-immigrant rhetoric when a deadly mass shooting targeted Latinos at an El Paso Walmart.
You can watch the evening’s speeches in the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-02-05--The Iowa Caucuses and the Menace of Untested, Privately Owned Election Technology

As the Iowa Democratic party scrambled to sort out winners and losers from Monday ’ s comic caucuses , the real victor could be the American people , who got to witness , in real time , the menace of relying on untested , privately owned election technology .
It ’ s not that we haven ’ t seen problematic election technology before .
In 2016 , fourteen states voted using electronic devices that did not provide a record of voter intent ; seven will still be using those machines in 2020 .
Many states have voting systems that offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant number of systems are connected to the Internet and vulnerable in other ways .
The Iowa caucuses always capture the attention of the entire country , but this year the focus is not just on the delegate counts but on a defective mobile app , which was supposed to streamline the reporting of the results , and on Shadow , the little-known , for-profit company that built it .
A number of people associated with Shadow have close ties to Democratic Party officials .
Shadow was launched by ACRONYM , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January of 2019 .
ACRONYM ’ s founder and C.E.O.
, Tara McGowan , is married to Michael Halle , a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg .
David Plouffe , who served as President Obama ’ s 2008 campaign manager , is on ACRONYM ’ s board .
After the app ’ s failure on Monday , a spokesperson for ACRONYM distanced the organization from Shadow on Twitter .
For decades , American election systems have run on technology sold and maintained by private , for-profit companies .
Shadow appears to have built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden campaigns .
F.E.C .
filings show that the Buttigieg campaign paid the firm $ 42,500 and the Biden campaign paid it $ 1,225 .
If it wasn ’ t previously obvious to the Democratic Party , or to Shadow , or to the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns , that this arrangement might be perceived as a conflict of interest , it is certainly obvious today .
It did not take long before rumors spread on social media that Shadow was in cahoots with the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns .
For a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the one that is short on integrity , this was a failure all around .
The Nevada Democratic Party , which had planned to use the Shadow app for its caucuses , later this month , announced on Monday that it would not be doing so .
According to the Times , the Shadow app was “ quickly put together ” in the past two months , after a different method for reporting results was scrapped .
The idea that an election-reporting system was “ quickly put together ” is worrisome enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more problematic .
It was not enough time for the app to be tested in an actual election or to have been vetted by cybersecurity experts .
( Christopher Krebs , the director of the cybersecurity agency at the Department of Homeland Security , told the Times that the app had not been evaluated by his agency . )
Though it ’ s easy to criticize the debacle in Iowa , it is unlikely that the voting machines that will be pulled out of closets , dusted off , and plugged in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been subject to a thorough cybersecurity review , either .
Even the newest ones were generally vetted , if they were inspected at all , under voluntary guidelines that were developed fifteen years ago .
Those guidelines do not say anything about the current state of cybersecurity .
This was true in the 2016 election , and it will be true this year .
And , although more municipalities are taking advantage of an offer from the Department of Homeland Security to help them “ harden ” their systems , this , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pieces of election-integrity legislation that have been sent to the Senate since Trump ’ s election have been blocked by Mitch McConnell .
As the night wore on in Iowa and election officials became increasingly frustrated by the mobile app , a Buttigieg spokesman started tweeting out precinct delegate counts .
Not only did he show the arcane math used to allocate delegates ; he displayed what appeared to be a pin number used for verifying the delegate allocation , information that could potentially be used by hackers .
With many unsubstantiated rumors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been hacked , here was an individual who might have made that possible .
If nothing else , his sloppiness tossed accelerant onto those rumors , which blew up on social media .
The Iowa debacle was not caused by the voting itself on Monday night .
In caucuses , citizens gather in school gyms , mosques , churches , and Grange halls to declare , in person , without the scrim of secrecy , support for their preferred candidates .
The problems arose after that , during the reporting process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s demand for instant results .
To be sure , vote tallying is an integral part of the election process , and it requires as much security as vote casting does .
And it was this part of the system that failed .
But , unlike many states , Iowa keeps a physical , paper record from every precinct .
It ’ s a potent reminder that hand-marked paper backups are crucial for any election system that relies on digital technology .
If voters are to come out on top in Iowa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from having for-profit companies running elections , prohibit candidates from funding companies that also supply election technology for primaries and general elections , and provide sufficient training for poll workers , who are the intermediaries between the voters and the outcome .
Zach Simonson , the Democratic Party chair in Wapello County , Iowa , told the Times that he received no training on the app before the caucuses.
“ The app wasn ’ t included in the chair training that everyone was required to take , ” he said .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up their software to researchers , instead of threatening to sue anyone who examines their systems , and for all technology used in elections to be tested and vetted by independent researchers for operational efficacy and security .
After the 2016 Presidential election , we learned that forces outside the United States , and some inside it , aim to delegitimize American democracy by questioning its integrity .
It is irresponsible to give them an assist in 2020 .

As the Iowa Democratic Party scrambled to sort out winners and losers from Monday’s comic caucuses, the real victor could be the American people, who got to witness, in real time, the menace of relying on untested, privately owned election technology. It’s not that we haven’t seen problematic election technology before. In 2016, fourteen states voted using electronic devices that did not provide a record of voter intent; seven will still be using those machines in 2020. Many states have voting systems that offer election officials—and therefore hackers—remote access, and a significant number of systems are connected to the Internet and vulnerable in other ways. The Iowa caucuses always capture the attention of the entire country, but this year the focus is not just on the delegate counts but on a defective mobile app, which was supposed to streamline the reporting of the results, and on Shadow, the little-known, for-profit company that built it.
A number of people associated with Shadow have close ties to Democratic Party officials. Shadow was launched by Acronym, a nonprofit that promotes Democratic candidates, in January of 2019. Acronym’s founder and C.E.O., Tara McGowan, is married to Michael Halle, a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg. David Plouffe, who served as President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, is on Acronym’s board. After the app’s failure on Monday, a spokesperson for Acronym distanced the organization from Shadow on Twitter.
For decades, American election systems have run on technology sold and maintained by private, for-profit companies. Shadow appears to have built a texting tool used by the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns. F.E.C. filings show that the Buttigieg campaign paid the firm $42,500 and the Biden campaign paid it $1,225. If it wasn’t previously obvious to the Democratic Party, or to Shadow, or to the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns, that this arrangement might be perceived as a conflict of interest, it is certainly obvious today. It did not take long before rumors spread on social media that Shadow was in cahoots with the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns. For a political party that needs to distinguish itself from the one that is short on integrity, this was a failure all around. The Nevada Democratic Party, which had planned to use the Shadow app for its caucuses, later this month, announced on Monday that it would not be doing so.
According to the Times, the Shadow app was “quickly put together” in the past two months, after a different method for reporting results was scrapped. The idea that an election-reporting system was “quickly put together” is worrisome enough, but that two-month period is even more problematic. It was not enough time for the app to be tested in an actual election or to have been vetted by cybersecurity experts. (Christopher Krebs, the director of the cybersecurity agency at the Department of Homeland Security, told the Times that the app had not been evaluated by his agency.)
Highlights from President Trump’s State of the Union address.
Though it’s easy to criticize the debacle in Iowa, it is unlikely that the voting machines that will be pulled out of closets, dusted off, and plugged in all across the nation in November will have been subject to a thorough cybersecurity review, either. Even the newest ones were generally vetted, if they were inspected at all, under voluntary guidelines that were developed fifteen years ago. Those guidelines do not say anything about the current state of cybersecurity. This was true in the 2016 election, and it will be true this year. And, although more municipalities are taking advantage of an offer from the Department of Homeland Security to help them “harden” their systems, this, too, is voluntary. Meanwhile, major pieces of election-integrity legislation that have been sent to the Senate since Trump’s election have been blocked by Mitch McConnell.
As the night wore on in Iowa and election officials became increasingly frustrated by the mobile app, a Buttigieg spokesman started tweeting out precinct delegate counts. Not only did he show the arcane math used to allocate delegates; he displayed what appeared to be a pin number used for verifying the delegate allocation, information that could potentially be used by hackers. With many unsubstantiated rumors circulating that Shadow’s reporting tool had been hacked, here was an individual who might have made that possible. If nothing else, his sloppiness tossed accelerant onto those rumors, which blew up on social media.
The Iowa debacle was not caused by the voting itself on Monday night. In caucuses, citizens gather in school gyms, mosques, churches, and Grange halls to declare, in person, without the scrim of secrecy, support for their preferred candidates. The problems arose after that, during the reporting process, and were exacerbated by the public’s demand for instant results. To be sure, vote tallying is an integral part of the election process, and it requires as much security as vote casting does. And it was this part of the system that failed. But, unlike many states, Iowa keeps a physical, paper record from every precinct. It’s a potent reminder that hand-marked paper backups are crucial for any election system that relies on digital technology.
If voters are to come out on top in Iowa, the United States needs to move away from having for-profit companies running elections, prohibit candidates from funding companies that also supply election technology for primaries and general elections, and provide sufficient training for poll workers, who are the intermediaries between the voters and the outcome. Zach Simonson, the Democratic Party chair in Wapello County, Iowa, told the Times that he received no training on the app before the caucuses.“The app wasn’t included in the chair training that everyone was required to take,” he said.
It’s crucial for election venders to open up their software to researchers, instead of threatening to sue anyone who examines their systems, and for all technology used in elections to be tested and vetted by independent researchers for operational efficacy and security. After the 2016 Presidential election, we learned that forces outside the United States, and some inside it, aim to delegitimize American democracy by questioning its integrity. It is irresponsible to give them an assist in 2020.


newyorker--2020-02-05--Mitt Romney’s Act of Political Courage in the Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump

In the preface to “ Profiles in Courage , ” published in 1956 , John F. Kennedy , then the junior senator from Massachusetts , offers an inventory of the pressures that senators face which “ discourage them from acts of political courage.
” First , there is the human craving to be liked .
Senators are no different from everyone else , Kennedy writes , in that they “ prefer praise to abuse , popularity to contempt.
” They tend to want to “ get along with our fellow legislators , our fellow members of the club , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to pursue a unique and independent course which would embarrass or irritate the other members , ” he continues .
There is , too , the matter of political survival .
This is not an entirely self-centered consideration .
After all , senators who are voted out of office will no longer be around to fight for their principles .
Losing reëlection does not affect the senator alone but also his or her family and friends and supporters––many of whom sacrificed their time and resources to help the senator get elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a non-totalitarian country , but in the political profession is the individual expected to sacrifice all––including his own career––for the national good ?
” Kennedy writes .
The trappings of the Senate––its prestige , access to power , and other privileges––are difficult to give up .
“ Thus , perhaps without realizing it , some Senators tend to take the easier , less troublesome path to harmonize or rationalize what at first appears to be a conflict between their conscience––or the result of their deliberations—and the majority opinion of their constituents.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the constituents themselves : “ the interest groups , the organized letter writers , the economic blocs and even the average voter.
” These pressures are myriad , endless , and often conflicting .
Even if the numbers of a particular constituency are not large , they can be difficult to ignore .
Kennedy characterizes these factors as the “ most significant source of pressures which discourage political courage in the conscientious Senator or Congressman.
” More than six decades later , Kennedy ’ s accounting of all of the forces that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some measure of the bravery of the speech that Mitt Romney delivered on the Senate floor on Wednesday .
Shortly before all of his Republican colleagues voted to acquit Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial , Romney said he believed that the President had committed “ high crimes and misdemeanors.
” “ The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival , ” Romney said .
“ The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so .
The President delayed funds for an American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The President ’ s purpose was personal and political .
Accordingly , the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.
” Romney acknowledged in his speech that his vote was a symbolic one .
He was also aware , as a frequent critic of the President , that the power of the “ organized letter writers ” is magnified today , by all of the digital age ’ s tools , which a populist demagogue President can use to incite his supporters .
“ I am aware that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision , and , in some quarters , I will be vehemently denounced , ” Romney said .
“ I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters .
Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me ?
” Romney ’ s career in public service has long been characterized by discordant narratives .
He has sought to convey to voters his deep sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contribution to his country , while critics of both parties have held that he is a capricious politician lacking in core convictions .
On Wednesday , Romney may have finally resolved that conflict for posterity .
“ I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability , believing that my country expected it of me , ” he said .
“ I will only be one name among many , no more or less , to future generations of Americans who look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong , grievously wrong .
”

In the preface to “Profiles in Courage,” published in 1956, John F. Kennedy, then the junior senator from Massachusetts, offers an inventory of the pressures that senators face which “discourage them from acts of political courage.” First, there is the human craving to be liked. Politicians are no different from everyone else, Kennedy writes, in that they “prefer praise to abuse, popularity to contempt.” Lawmakers tend to want to “get along with our fellow legislators, our fellow members of the club, to abide by the clubhouse rules and patterns, not to pursue a unique and independent course which would embarrass or irritate the other members,” he continues.
There is, too, the matter of political survival. This is not an entirely self-centered consideration. After all, senators who are voted out of office will no longer be around to fight for their principles. Losing reëlection does not affect the senator alone but also his or her family and friends and supporters—many of whom sacrificed their time and resources to help the senator get elected to public office. The trappings of the Senate—its prestige, access to power, and other privileges—are difficult to give up as well. “Thus, perhaps without realizing it,” Kennedy writes, “some Senators tend to take the easier, less troublesome path to harmonize or rationalize what at first appears to be a conflict between their conscience—or the result of their deliberations—and the majority opinion of their constituents.”
Finally, Kennedy describes the pressures of the constituents themselves: “the interest groups, the organized letter writers, the economic blocs and even the average voter.” These pressures are myriad, endless, and often conflicting. Even if the numbers of a particular constituency are not large, they can be difficult to ignore. Kennedy characterizes these factors as the “most significant source of pressures which discourage political courage in the conscientious Senator or Congressman.”
Highlights from President Trump’s State of the Union address.
More than six decades later, Kennedy’s accounting of all of the forces that prevent legislators from taking unpopular stands provides some measure of the bravery of the speech that Mitt Romney delivered on the Senate floor on Wednesday. Shortly before all of his Republican colleagues voted to acquit Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, Romney said he believed that the President had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” “The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival,” Romney said. “The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The President’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.” Romney acknowledged in his speech that his vote was a symbolic one. He was also aware, as a frequent critic of the President, that the power of the “organized letter writers” is magnified today, by all of the digital age’s tools, which a populist demagogue President can use to incite his supporters.
“I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and, in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced,” Romney said. “I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?”
Romney’s career in public service has long been characterized by discordant narratives. He has sought to convey to voters his deep sense of civic duty and his desire to make a contribution to his country, while critics of both parties have held that he is a capricious politician lacking in core convictions. On Wednesday, Romney may have finally resolved that conflict for posterity. “I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me,” he said. “I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.”


newyorker--2020-02-05--The “BoJack Horseman” Finale: A Hollywoo Reckoning

In 1937 , Walter Rollin Brooks , a journeyman writer from upstate New York , sold a story called “ The Talking Horse ” to the magazine Liberty .
The conceit was silly but certainly not for kids : a champagne-swilling adman named Wilbur Pope , living in Westchester with his profligate socialite wife , Carlotta , bonds with his drinking buddy Ed , who just so happens to be a horse living in his barn .
Ed , for some unexplained reason , can talk , and he has a dirty mouth .
He recounts lascivious stories , guzzles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlotta ’ s flagrant social climbing .
Brooks went on to publish dozens of “ Mr .
Ed ” stories in adult magazines , and though he eventually became a writer of children ’ s books his talking-horse stories remained decidedly vulgar .
According to his biography , he stopped publishing in one magazine after an editor asked him to make the horse go sober .
Brooks died before the hit TV adaptation of “ Mr .
Ed ” came out , in the sixties , but he likely would have disapproved of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed had a puckish sense of humor but abstained from alcohol and no longer had a streak of nihilism .
The palomino evinced a blithe , equine equilibrium .
A show that better honors the original spirit of Brooks ’ s tales is “ BoJack Horseman , ” the Netflix animated black comedy whose sixth and final season was released last week .
It originated in 2011 , when Raphael Bob-Waksberg , a struggling TV writer in Los Angeles , wrote an e-mail to his high-school friend Lisa Hanawalt , an illustrator living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject line “ BoJack the depressed talking horse.
” Bob-Waksberg had been asked to bring ideas to a small animation studio that was pitching to Netflix , which had only just started acquiring original content ; he and Hanawalt decided to team up to develop a show .
Who knows if the streaming giant would pick up their absurdist idea today ( last year , the platform cancelled Hanawalt ’ s “ Tuca and Bertie , ” a lovable show about friendship between a toucan and a songbird , after just one season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content , and so a show about a talking horse named BoJack was born .
Like the original Mr. Ed , BoJack drinks , cavorts , and misbehaves .
The difference is that BoJack is not just an animal that talks like a man ; he is anthropomorphized on a spiritual level , too , with more insecurities , anxieties , and troubles than many members of humankind .
“ BoJack ” was also , from the get-go , a brilliant Hollywood satire .
Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt set their show in “ Hollywoo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world in which animals and humans work together , fall in love , and screw each other over .
In the pilot , we learn that BoJack ( voiced by Will Arnett ) is the former star of a saccharine syndicated comedy called “ Horsin ’ Around ” ( sort of a combination of “ Full House ” and “ Mr .
Ed ” ) .
He lives in a mansion in the Hollywoo Hills and has enlisted a human writer named Diane Nguyen ( Alison Brie ) to ghostwrite his memoirs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peanutbutter ( Paul F. Tompkins ) , a buoyant golden retriever and BoJack ’ s former television rival and current frenemy .
BoJack has an agent named Princess Carolyn ( Amy Sedaris ) , a pink tabby cat with a careerist streak , and a slacker house guest named Todd ( Aaron Paul ) , who started sleeping on BoJack ’ s couch one day and never stopped .
BoJack is also an addict : a drunk , a druggophile , a philanderer .
He is existentially empty , full of bile and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk to ; Hollywoo is a packed zoo , but BoJack is alone in a self-made cage .
The show , in the course of six seasons , charted an ever-sinking series of rock bottoms .
BoJack ruined the career of director after director , friend after friend .
He visited an old flame in Santa Fe and ended up in bed with her teen-age daughter .
He disappeared into a heroin haze with Sarah Lynn , the former child star of “ Horsin ’ Around , ” and then Sarah Lynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence .
BoJack choked a female co-star and then , in a moment of self-loathing , begged Diane to write a # MeToo exposé about his deeds .
( She drove him to rehab instead . )
“ BoJack Horseman ” was relentlessly bleak in its portrayal of depression , and of the unyielding and cyclical torment of living inside a troubled mind .
But , of course , no real animals were harmed in the making of “ BoJack Horseman , ” which is what kept it so fun to watch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ show ’ s blows , as did the proliferation of sight gags and double-layered showbiz and animal jokes .
When BoJack bombed a standup routine , he was met with the sound of literal crickets .
A wolf walked through a party wearing a shirt that said “ Sheep ” on it .
A socialite mouse—who at one point is Diane ’ s boss at a women ’ s Web site called “ Girl Croosh ” —wears a cardigan pin in the shape of two tiny cookies .
A poodle woman shopping with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I really shouldn ’ t eat chocolate , ‘ cause it can literally kill me.
” If you wanted to , you could enjoy BoJack—at least for the first few seasons—for the densely clever visual environment Hanawalt and Bob-Waksberg created , where every frame feels like the fevered love child of a field guide and “ The Player.
” Did Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt know , from the beginning , how dark they ’ d let things get ?
“ BoJack ” ’ s years on Netflix coincided with Hollywood ’ s broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they couldn ’ t have BoJack just float through Hollywoo ruining lives—particularly those of the women he encountered—without some sort of reckoning .
In the show ’ s final season , BoJack does time in rehab , takes a job as a drama professor at Wesleyan , and , for a time , stays sober .
But after a pair of reporters ( a human man in a pin-striped suit and a pig in a wedding dress , speaking like lovers in a classic screwball comedy ) discover BoJack ’ s hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his new stability begins to crumble .
He gives an apologetic prime-time interview to a mouse named Biscuits Braxby , which goes over more or less seamlessly .
But because he is an addict—and a narcissist—he agrees to sit for a second interview , which goes horribly wrong .
Braxby lays out all of the instances in which BoJack has manipulated and mistreated the young women in his coterie , and he turns defensive , then angry , then hangs his head in shame .
BoJack is , finally , over in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and breaks into a house he no longer owns , then falls into the house ’ s swimming pool and nearly drowns .
Instead , the trespassing lands him in prison .
In the final scene of the series , BoJack , on a brief court-sanctioned day off from jail ( being a celebrity , even a disgraced one , still has its perks ) , attends Princess Carolyn ’ s wedding .
He has melancholy conversations with his former friends , all of which feel like final goodbyes .
Watching this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show ’ s best episodes , “ Fish Out of Water , ” from the fourth season .
In it , BoJack attends an underwater film festival , wearing a scuba bubble around his head that prevents him from talking .
The episode is largely silent .
BoJack can not smooth-talk or equivocate .
All he has are his actions , and he ends up spending much of the festival tenderly caring for a baby seahorse that has lost its way .
The final season of “ BoJack , ” on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The protagonists were all , in their own ways , trying to talk their way to peace : BoJack in therapy and later on television ; Princess Carolyn in her wheelings and dealings ; Diane with a new partner ( a buffalo named Guy ) ; and Todd as he tried to reconcile his broken relationship with his mother .
“ BoJack ” was not about a talking horse so much as it was about a horse who can ’ t stop talking—until he finally runs out of excuses .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Diane sit quietly together on a rooftop .
If “ BoJack , ” in its long , strange , galloping run , has anything to teach us with its animal entanglements , it ’ s that there will never be easy solutions to the most vexing human problems .
Sometimes the end of the story leaves you sitting alone , talking to a horse , unsure of what happens next .

In 1937, Walter Rollin Brooks, a journeyman writer from upstate New York, sold a story called “The Talking Horse” to the magazine Liberty. The conceit was silly but certainly not for kids: a champagne-swilling adman named Wilbur Pope, living in Westchester with his profligate socialite wife, Carlotta, bonds with his drinking buddy Ed, who just so happens to be a horse living in his barn. Ed, for some unexplained reason, can talk, and he has a dirty mouth. He recounts lascivious stories, guzzles booze, and gossips with Wilbur about Carlotta’s flagrant social climbing. Brooks went on to publish dozens of “Mr. Ed” stories in adult magazines, and though he eventually became a writer of children’s books his talking-horse stories remained decidedly vulgar. According to his biography, he stopped publishing in one magazine after an editor asked him to make the horse go sober. Brooks died before the hit TV adaptation of “Mr. Ed” came out, in the sixties, but he likely would have disapproved of it. In the show, Mr. Ed had a puckish sense of humor but abstained from alcohol and no longer had a streak of nihilism. The palomino evinced a blithe, equine equilibrium.
A show that better honors the original spirit of Brooks’s tales is “BoJack Horseman,” the Netflix animated black comedy whose sixth and final season was released last week. It originated in 2011, when Raphael Bob-Waksberg, a struggling TV writer in Los Angeles, wrote an e-mail to his high-school friend Lisa Hanawalt, an illustrator living in New York City, with the subject line “BoJack the depressed talking horse.” Bob-Waksberg had been asked to bring ideas to a small animation studio that was pitching to Netflix, which had only just started acquiring original content; he and Hanawalt decided to team up to develop a show. Who knows if the streaming giant would pick up their absurdist idea today (last year, the platform cancelled Hanawalt’s “Tuca and Bertie,” a lovable show about friendship between a toucan and a songbird, after just one season). But back then Netflix needed content, and so a show about a talking horse named BoJack was born. Like the original Mr. Ed, BoJack drinks, cavorts, and misbehaves. The difference is that BoJack is not just an animal that talks like a man; he is anthropomorphized on a spiritual level, too, with more insecurities, anxieties, and troubles than many members of humankind.
“BoJack” was also, from the get-go, a brilliant Hollywood satire. Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt set their show in “Hollywoo,” a technicolor, bizarro show-biz world in which animals and humans work together, fall in love, and screw each other over. In the pilot, we learn that BoJack (voiced by Will Arnett) is the former star of a saccharine syndicated comedy called “Horsin’ Around” (sort of a combination of “Full House” and “Mr. Ed”). He lives in a mansion in the Hollywoo Hills and has enlisted a human writer named Diane Nguyen (Alison Brie) to ghostwrite his memoirs. Diane is in a relationship with Mr. Peanutbutter (Paul F. Tompkins), a buoyant golden retriever and BoJack’s former television rival and current frenemy. BoJack has an agent named Princess Carolyn (Amy Sedaris), a pink tabby cat with a careerist streak, and a slacker house guest named Todd (Aaron Paul), who started sleeping on BoJack’s couch one day and never stopped. BoJack is also an addict: a drunk, a druggophile, a philanderer. He is existentially empty, full of bile and regret. He has no Wilbur Pope to talk to; Hollywoo is a packed zoo, but BoJack is alone in a self-made cage.
The show, in the course of six seasons, charted an ever-sinking series of rock bottoms. BoJack ruined the career of director after director, friend after friend. He visited an old flame in Santa Fe and ended up in bed with her teen-age daughter. He disappeared into a heroin haze with Sarah Lynn, the former child star of “Horsin’ Around,” and then Sarah Lynn had an overdose and died in his presence. BoJack choked a female co-star and then, in a moment of self-loathing, begged Diane to write a #MeToo exposé about his deeds. (She drove him to rehab instead.) “BoJack Horseman” was relentlessly bleak in its portrayal of depression, and of the unyielding and cyclical torment of living inside a troubled mind.
But, of course, no real animals were harmed in the making of “BoJack Horseman,” which is what kept it so fun to watch. Hanawalt’s candy-colored cartoons softened the show’s blows, as did the proliferation of sight gags and double-layered show-biz and animal jokes. When BoJack bombed a standup routine, he was met with the sound of literal crickets. A wolf walked through a party wearing a shirt that said “Sheep” on it. A socialite mouse—who at one point is Diane’s boss at a women’s Web site called “Girl Croosh”—wears a cardigan pin in the shape of two tiny cookies. A poodle woman shopping with her corgi gal pal is overheard saying, “I really shouldn’t eat chocolate, ’cause it can literally kill me.” If you wanted to, you could enjoy BoJack—at least for the first few seasons—for the densely clever visual environment Hanawalt and Bob-Waksberg created, where every frame feels like the fevered love child of a field guide and “The Player.”
Did Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt know, from the beginning, how dark they’d let things get? “BoJack” ’s years on Netflix coincided with Hollywood’s broader confrontation with abuse and imbalances of power; they couldn’t have BoJack just float through Hollywoo ruining lives—particularly those of the women he encountered—without some sort of reckoning. In the show’s final season, BoJack does time in rehab, takes a job as a drama professor at Wesleyan, and, for a time, stays sober. But after a pair of reporters (a human man in a pin-striped suit and a pig in a wedding dress, speaking like lovers in a classic screwball comedy) discover BoJack’s hand in Sarah Lynn’s death, his new stability begins to crumble. He gives an apologetic prime-time interview to a mouse named Biscuits Braxby, which goes over more or less seamlessly. But because he is an addict—and a narcissist—he agrees to sit for a second interview, which goes horribly wrong. Braxby lays out all of the instances in which BoJack has manipulated and mistreated the young women in his coterie, and he turns defensive, then angry, then hangs his head in shame. BoJack is, finally, over in this town. He goes on a bender and breaks into a house he no longer owns, then falls into the house’s swimming pool and nearly drowns. Instead, the trespassing lands him in prison.
In the final scene of the series, BoJack, on a brief court-sanctioned day off from jail (being a celebrity, even a disgraced one, still has its perks), attends Princess Carolyn’s wedding. He has melancholy conversations with his former friends, all of which feel like final goodbyes. Watching this, I thought back on one of the show’s best episodes, “Fish Out of Water,” from the fourth season. In it, BoJack attends an underwater film festival, wearing a scuba bubble around his head that prevents him from talking. The episode is largely silent. BoJack cannot smooth-talk or equivocate. All he has are his actions, and he ends up spending much of the festival tenderly caring for a baby seahorse that has lost its way. The final season of “BoJack,” on the other hand, was exhausting in its verboseness. The protagonists were all, in their own ways, trying to talk their way to peace: BoJack in therapy and later on television; Princess Carolyn in her wheelings and dealings; Diane with a new partner (a buffalo named Guy); and Todd as he tried to reconcile his broken relationship with his mother. “BoJack” was not about a talking horse so much as it was about a horse who can’t stop talking—until he finally runs out of excuses. In the last seconds of the series, BoJack and Diane sit quietly together on a rooftop. If “BoJack,” in its long, strange, galloping run, has anything to teach us with its animal entanglements, it’s that there will never be easy solutions to the most vexing human problems. Sometimes the end of the story leaves you sitting alone, talking to a horse, unsure of what happens next.


newyorker--2020-02-05--The “Self-Evidently Bad Idea” That Tanked the Iowa Caucuses

Democratic voters across Iowa caucused on Monday night in the eagerly awaited first contest of the 2020 election .
Results , however , have been hard to come by .
Thanks to numerous screwups by the state Democratic Party , we still don ’ t know the winner .
( The Iowa Democratic Party had released results from three-fourths of all precincts as of Wednesday afternoon . )
Adding to the confusion is that both the Party and the media have been reporting people ’ s first and final voting preferences , as well as state delegate equivalents ( S.D.E.s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie Sanders is likely to win on the first metric , and Pete Buttigieg on the third .
And , regardless of which metric is used , Elizabeth Warren is certain to finish in third place , Joe Biden in fourth , and Amy Klobuchar in fifth .
To discuss the results and what they mean for the race , I spoke by phone , on Wednesday , with Nate Cohn , a domestic correspondent for the Upshot at the New York Times .
( Cohn and I worked together at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we covered the shape of Sanders ’ s coalition , Warren ’ s struggles , Buttigieg ’ s narrow path to a possible victory , and the reason the Iowa Democratic Party messed up so badly .
Did the data from the entrance poll and the results released so far suggest anything about one candidate expanding his or her base , or having surprising appeal ?
No , I thought that the results and the entrance-poll results were largely consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a case that the Sanders team could be a little disappointed in the results that came in a little lower than pre-election polling .
The turnout wasn ’ t as large as they would have hoped , and he was fairly weak among older voters .
He might have had only around four per cent of voters over age sixty-five , and Iowa is really the only place you can get away with something like that .
The electorate will be older everywhere .
Why is that ?
It isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a caucus , and old people do not go to caucuses , while old people vote all the time .
Coming into the night , my assumption had been that Warren and Buttigieg were most in need of strong performances because Iowa is such a white state , and Biden and Sanders have shown more strength with nonwhite voters .
Was that a fair assumption , in your mind ?
I suppose .
I think that it would be very hard , and maybe impossible , for either of them to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , or outright winning .
And I suppose that is not true of Biden or Sanders .
So in that sense I think it ’ s a reasonable thing to argue .
But I think the stakes for all these candidates were quite high .
In part because I am not really convinced that a win for Buttigieg or Warren would be enough to win the nomination , I am reluctant to place the possibility that they could keep their hopes alive as the most important stakes in the Iowa contest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially Warren now , I assume , have a very long road to the nomination ?
I don ’ t really see the path for Warren unless she is going to have a huge upset in New Hampshire next Tuesday , and I don ’ t really see that happening .
She has no area of distinctive strength .
In all of her strengths , someone else is stronger .
She is strong among liberals , but Sanders is stronger .
She is strong among well-educated voters , but Buttigieg is better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the county map in Iowa , she didn ’ t win a single county for this reason .
The number of actual precincts she won is quite low as well .
So that makes it really hard for me to see how she is going to take a leap from here .
Where is she going to win , particularly if she doesn ’ t have momentum on her side ?
Buttigieg has a well-documented issue among nonwhite voters , and there is a lot of competition among affluent , moderate white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe he can leap from here to the kind of huge , commanding advantage among affluent whites he would need to make up for his likely disadvantage among black voters .
But I would be reluctant to rule it out , given how wide open the race is now .
It ’ s not like anyone is that strong .
Do you think there is anything Buttigieg could do to expand his coalition ?
No , probably not .
I don ’ t think there is something he could say , or some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credible and would have a real chance of materially influencing the trajectory of his support among nonwhite voters .
Sanders did well despite getting only around half the percentage he did in his race against Hillary Clinton , in 2016 .
How is his new coalition different from what it was in 2016 ?
He has shed a lot of his support among older and rural voters .
He has been reduced to a coalition of ideologically consistent progressive voters , while in 2016 he also had a substantial amount of support among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like Hillary Clinton , to take one example .
I should say that this is not the story in the national polls .
In the national polls , he seems to be doing better among groups that were not at the core of his coalition .
You may have seen that he seems like he is doing better with Latino and black voters , compared to white voters , than in 2016 .
I don ’ t know that the story I told you will hold up , but it is certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the map , he is basically only winning the college towns now , while there are all sorts of older rural areas that went for Buttigieg or even Klobuchar that he carried in 2016 .
You alluded to Clinton ’ s weaknesses , and there are two ways to look at this .
One is that Sanders could have some strength down the road with some of these groups that went to Buttigieg or Klobuchar in Iowa , and the other is that he lucked out to run against Hillary Clinton in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working-class men , for example , is limited this time .
Do you have a theory ?
I strongly agree with what you just suggested .
I think Sanders benefitted in a lot of ways from being in a matchup against Hillary Clinton .
A lot of people didn ’ t like Hillary Clinton .
Bernie Sanders may not have been the perfect candidate for them , but they were going to support him as a protest vote .
I think that was even true in general-election polls in 2016 , where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they liked Sanders and had a fond feeling about him simply because he ran against Hillary Clinton .
Look at the polls now , and it is a pretty different story .
In our Iowa poll , we had Bernie Sanders losing in the general election by six points .
That was the worst of any of the major Democratic candidates .
And that supposes a one-hundred-per-cent turnout , which presumably includes all the irregular young voters that they hope to lure to the polls .

Democratic voters across Iowa caucused on Monday night in the eagerly awaited first contest of the 2020 election. Results, however, have been hard to come by. Thanks to numerous screwups by the state Democratic Party, we still don’t know the winner. (The Iowa Democratic Party had released results from three-fourths of all precincts as of Wednesday afternoon.)
Adding to the confusion is that both the Party and the media have been reporting people’s first and final voting preferences, as well as state delegate equivalents (S.D.E.s). What does seem clear is that Bernie Sanders is likely to win on the first metric, and Pete Buttigieg on the third. And, regardless of which metric is used, Elizabeth Warren is certain to finish in third place, Joe Biden in fourth, and Amy Klobuchar in fifth.
To discuss the results and what they mean for the race, I spoke by phone, on Wednesday, with Nate Cohn, a domestic correspondent for the Upshot at the New York Times. (Cohn and I worked together at The New Republic and remain friends.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we covered the shape of Sanders’s coalition, Warren’s struggles, Buttigieg’s narrow path to a possible victory, and the reason the Iowa Democratic Party messed up so badly.
Did the data from the entrance poll and the results released so far suggest anything about one candidate expanding his or her base, or having surprising appeal?
No, I thought that the results and the entrance-poll results were largely consistent with the pre-election polls. I could make a case that the Sanders team could be a little disappointed in the results that came in a little lower than pre-election polling. The turnout wasn’t as large as they would have hoped, and he was fairly weak among older voters. He might have had only around four per cent of voters over age sixty-five, and Iowa is really the only place you can get away with something like that. The electorate will be older everywhere.
Why is that? It isn’t intuitively obvious.
It is because it is a caucus, and old people do not go to caucuses, while old people vote all the time.
Coming into the night, my assumption had been that Warren and Buttigieg were most in need of strong performances because Iowa is such a white state, and Biden and Sanders have shown more strength with nonwhite voters. Was that a fair assumption, in your mind?
I suppose. I think that it would be very hard, and maybe impossible, for either of them to win the nomination without doing very well in Iowa, or outright winning. And I suppose that is not true of Biden or Sanders. So in that sense I think it’s a reasonable thing to argue. But I think the stakes for all these candidates were quite high. In part because I am not really convinced that a win for Buttigieg or Warren would be enough to win the nomination, I am reluctant to place the possibility that they could keep their hopes alive as the most important stakes in the Iowa contest.
Why do you think both of them, especially Warren now, I assume, have a very long road to the nomination?
I don’t really see the path for Warren unless she is going to have a huge upset in New Hampshire next Tuesday, and I don’t really see that happening. She has no area of distinctive strength. In all of her strengths, someone else is stronger. She is strong among liberals, but Sanders is stronger. She is strong among well-educated voters, but Buttigieg is better in well-educated suburbs. If you look at the county map in Iowa, she didn’t win a single county for this reason. The number of actual precincts she won is quite low as well. So that makes it really hard for me to see how she is going to take a leap from here. Where is she going to win, particularly if she doesn’t have momentum on her side?
Buttigieg has a well-documented issue among nonwhite voters, and there is a lot of competition among affluent, moderate white voters. I find it hard to believe he can leap from here to the kind of huge, commanding advantage among affluent whites he would need to make up for his likely disadvantage among black voters. But I would be reluctant to rule it out, given how wide open the race is now. It’s not like anyone is that strong.
Do you think there is anything Buttigieg could do to expand his coalition?
No, probably not. I don’t think there is something he could say, or some policy he could support that would be credible and would have a real chance of materially influencing the trajectory of his support among nonwhite voters.
Sanders did well despite getting only around half the percentage he did in his race against Hillary Clinton, in 2016. How is his new coalition different from what it was in 2016?
He has shed a lot of his support among older and rural voters. He has been reduced to a coalition of ideologically consistent progressive voters, while in 2016 he also had a substantial amount of support among white working-class men who maybe didn’t like Hillary Clinton, to take one example.
I should say that this is not the story in the national polls. In the national polls, he seems to be doing better among groups that were not at the core of his coalition. You may have seen that he seems like he is doing better with Latino and black voters, compared with white voters, than in 2016. I don’t know that the story I told you will hold up, but it is certainly true in Iowa. If you look at the map, he is basically only winning the college towns now, while there are all sorts of older rural areas that went for Buttigieg or even Klobuchar that he carried in 2016.
You alluded to Clinton’s weaknesses, and there are two ways to look at this. One is that Sanders could have some strength down the road with some of these groups that went to Buttigieg or Klobuchar in Iowa, and the other is that he lucked out to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and his appeal with white working-class men, for example, is limited this time. Do you have a theory?


newyorker--2020-02-05--Watch Live: The Final Senate Vote in Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial

It ’ s all over but the shouting .
On Wednesday , the Senate will convene once more for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Barring any major surprises , it is expected to end with the President ’ s acquittal on both of the articles of impeachment that have been brought against him , abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
A small but crucial cohort of what is commonly deemed the moderate faction of the G.O.P .
has been attempting to walk a careful line—lightly condemning the President ’ s actions while emphasizing that said actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to the seriousness of a high crime or misdemeanor , which would require the President ’ s removal from office .
Last week , Senator Lamar Alexander , of Tennessee , set the script when he agreed that the President ’ s conduct was “ inappropriate ” and said that the case against Trump had been more or less proved by the House managers .
But he felt that further witness testimony would be unnecessary , as he had no intention of voting to convict .
On Monday , Senator Susan Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to endorse the calling of witnesses until after the measure was doomed to fail , said that she would vote to acquit , adding that the threshold for the President ’ s removal from office needed to be higher , even though his conduct was “ improper and demonstrated very poor judgment.
” Senator Lisa Murkowski , of Alaska , was not far behind and not much different , saying Trump ’ s behavior was “ shameful and wrong ” but that voters , not the Senate , should decide whether to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , in November .
On Wednesday , in a stirring speech before a mostly empty Senate chamber , Senator Mitt Romney , a Republican of Utah , broke with his colleagues and said that he had an obligation to uphold his “ oath before God ” and vote to convict the President .
For the final vote , it appears that Democrats may struggle to obtain unanimity within their own party .
On Monday , Senator Joe Manchin , a Democrat of West Virginia , signalled uncertainty over whether he would vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his caucus in critical votes , most notably during the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court .
Less severe measures that might reprimand Trump seem equally out of reach .
In place of removal , Manchin raised the idea of the Senate voting to censure the President , believing such a resolution could garner bipartisan support .
That suggestion has gone nowhere .
Senator Alexander declined to sign on to the concept when asked about it by a reporter on Tuesday .
Although the outcome of the trial has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tension between the parties has grown considerably higher in recent weeks , culminating in some unsportsmanlike showmanship at the State of the Union address , on Tuesday night .
Though President Trump did not raise the topic of his impeachment trial in his speech , he refused to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s hand just before the beginning of the address .
At its close , Speaker Pelosi dramatically ripped up a transcript of the speech that she had been reading intently all night .
It served as a preview of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year .
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .

On Wednesday afternoon, senators are scheduled to render a verdict on the two articles of impeachment facing the President.
It’s all over but the shouting. On Wednesday, the Senate will convene once more for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Barring any major surprises, it is expected to end with the President’s acquittal on both of the articles of impeachment that have been brought against him, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
A small but crucial cohort of what is commonly deemed the moderate faction of the G.O.P. has been attempting to walk a careful line—lightly condemning the President’s actions while emphasizing that said actions do not, in their view, rise to the seriousness of a high crime or misdemeanor, which would require the President’s removal from office. Last week, Senator Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, set the script when he agreed that the President’s conduct was “inappropriate” and said that the case against Trump had been more or less proved by the House managers. But he felt that further witness testimony would be unnecessary, as he had no intention of voting to convict. On Monday, Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, who strategically waited to endorse the calling of witnesses until after the measure was doomed to fail, said that she would vote to acquit, adding that the threshold for the President’s removal from office needed to be higher, even though his conduct was “improper and demonstrated very poor judgment.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, was not far behind and not much different, saying Trump’s behavior was “shameful and wrong” but that voters, not the Senate, should decide whether to remove the President from office—in the upcoming general election, in November. On Wednesday, in a stirring speech before a mostly empty Senate chamber, Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, broke with his colleagues and said that he had an obligation to uphold his “oath before God” and vote to convict the President.
For the final vote, it appears that Democrats may struggle to obtain unanimity within their own party. On Monday, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat of West Virginia, signalled uncertainty over whether he would vote to convict. He previously has absconded from his caucus in critical votes, most notably during the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Less severe measures that might reprimand Trump seem equally out of reach. In place of removal, Manchin raised the idea of the Senate voting to censure the President, believing such a resolution could garner bipartisan support. That suggestion has gone nowhere. Senator Alexander declined to sign on to the concept when asked about it by a reporter on Tuesday.
Although the outcome of the trial has been basically certain since its outset, the tension between the parties has grown considerably higher in recent weeks, culminating in some unsportsmanlike showmanship at the State of the Union address, on Tuesday night. Though President Trump did not raise the topic of his impeachment trial in his speech, he refused to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand just before the beginning of the address. At its close, Speaker Pelosi dramatically ripped up a transcript of the speech that she had been reading intently all night. It served as a preview of a divisive post-impeachment reality for the upcoming election year.
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.


Comments-Section Success Stories

Gabriel Hahn : Had his Facebook status quoted back to him word for word , but in alternating capitals and lowercase letters .
Only then could he see how foolish the point he was making actually sounded , and immediately recanted .
Leah Coen : Posted a picture of one-third of her face next to some autumnal gourds on Instagram .
A rando commented , “ darling u r beautiful.
” She was overcome by the passion of his words , and now they are married .
Martin Lessing : Saw a response to his tweet that read , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s. ” He looked up and realized that he was indeed standing in a Wendy ’ s , an entirely inappropriate place for him to be staging his effusive polemic about libertarianism .
He stopped typing , ordered a milkshake , and felt much better .
Bret Stephens : Got called a “ metaphorical bedbug ” on Twitter and proceeded to delete his account and write a Times Op-Ed about how calling him a bedbug was the equivalent of doing the Holocaust to him .
Believe it or not , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Somebody wrote under her tweet , “ Delete ur account.
” She deleted her account and went on a silent retreat .
She feels like she can finally breathe again .
The colors of the world are brighter .
Nora Everly : Wrote a long Instagram comment about how difficult it is to be straight and white but have a crush on a queer woman of color in your workplace who doesn ’ t seem to be romantically interested in you .
The comment went viral and is being turned into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although she thought she wanted to date her co-worker , what she really wanted was an Amazon series .
Dan Riley : Called a complete stranger a “ garbage pile who should only have bad things happen to you ” on LinkedIn , for absolutely no reason .
He ’ s feeling pretty good about this move .

Gabriel Hahn: Had his Facebook status quoted back to him word for word, but in alternating capitals and lowercase letters. Only then could he see how foolish the point he was making actually sounded, and immediately recanted.
Leah Coen: Posted a picture of one-third of her face next to some autumnal gourds on Instagram. A rando commented, “darling u r beautiful.” She was overcome by the passion of his words, and now they are married.
Martin Lessing: Saw a response to his tweet that read, “Sir, this is a Wendy’s.” He looked up and realized that he was indeed standing in a Wendy’s, an entirely inappropriate place for him to be staging his effusive polemic about libertarianism. He stopped typing, ordered a milkshake, and felt much better.
Bret Stephens: Got called a “metaphorical bedbug” on Twitter and proceeded to delete his account and write a Times Op-Ed about how calling him a bedbug was the equivalent of doing the Holocaust to him. Believe it or not, that’s a win for Bret!
Ramona Fenton: Somebody wrote under her tweet, “Delete ur account.” She deleted her account and went on a silent retreat. She feels like she can finally breathe again. The colors of the world are brighter.
Nora Everly: Wrote a long Instagram comment about how difficult it is to be straight and white but have a crush on a queer woman of color in your workplace who doesn’t seem to be romantically interested in you. The comment went viral and is being turned into an Amazon series. Nora has realized that, although she thought she wanted to date her co-worker, what she really wanted was an Amazon series.
Dan Riley: Called a complete stranger a “garbage pile who should only have bad things happen to you” on LinkedIn, for absolutely no reason. He’s feeling pretty good about this move.