newyorker--2020-10-05--Chile en las barricadas

Chile en las barricadas

Ese año , como en los últimos años , las clases fueron interrumpidas a menudo por huelgas , paros , ocupaciones y enfrentamientos violentos con la policía .
La atmósfera era volátil : una protesta podía estallar por la mañana y obligar a la evacuación de la escuela , pero unas horas más tarde no habría rastro de ella ; era solo parte del trasfondo de un día normal .
“ En otro colegio , cualquier incidente podría pasar piola ” , me dijo Mario Vega , que enseña historia en el Instituto desde hace más de veinte años , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticia por la presencia del colegio ” .
La policía revisaba las mochilas cuando los estudiantes entraban al edificio , arrestándolos y deteniéndolos casi a voluntad , y , más de una vez , dispararon gases lacrimógenos dentro de la escuela .
En un momento dado , los agentes se apostaron en el techo para vigilar a los estudiantes , y se quedaron varias semanas .
Fue humillante .
“ Los carabineros orinaban en el techo y esa orina caía a las salas de clases ” , me dijo Pérez .
Cada día @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alrededor de dos millones y medio de pasajeros a través de la extensa capital , el equivalente a casi la mitad de la población de la ciudad .
Sin él , Santiago es una propuesta insostenible , un hecho que quedó dolorosamente claro esa tarde , cuando el sistema de transporte prácticamente colapsó .
Los viajeros varados se apretaron en autobuses atestados que apenas podían moverse en el tráfico enmarañado .
La mayoría no tuvo otra opción que caminar a casa .
“ Era algo que parecía una marcha , pero que no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson .
“ No habían carteles , ni siquiera consigna .
Simplemente había gente caminando por las calles , por la mitad de la calle , porque no cabían en la vereda ” .
Las propias estaciones de metro se convirtieron en blancos : más de la mitad de las ciento treinta y seis estaciones de Santiago fueron objeto de actos de vandalismo , algunas de ellas quemadas y gravemente dañadas .
Pero si la intención del gobierno era poner a la opinión pública en contra de los estudiantes y culparlos por los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ espectacular .
Por el contrario , cientos y luego miles comenzaron a congregarse en la Plaza Italia .
Los barrios de Santiago cobraron vida con el sonido de las cucharas de madera que golpeaban en ollas y sartenes , en un cacerolazo de horas en toda la ciudad .
Protestas similares surgieron en docenas de ciudades por todo el país .
Parecía que de la nada había comenzado una revolución social y política .
Pocos días antes del levantamiento , el presidente Piñera había concedido una entrevista radiofónica en la que describía a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en Latinoamérica .
Al comparar favorablemente a la nación con sus vecinos , acosados por la recesión y escándalos de corrupción , añadió : “ Mientras más veo las crisis , más tenemos que apreciar nuestro país ” .
La verdad es que esta declaración se volvió controvertida solo en retrospectiva , después de que el estallido se burlara de la supuesta tranquilidad y orden de Chile .
Desde el fin de la dictadura de Augusto Pinochet , en 1990 , el país se había posicionado como un caso atípico en Sudamérica , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ una próspera clase media .
Pero , si bien el crecimiento económico ha sido relativamente constante durante los últimos treinta años , sacando a cientos de miles de chilenos de la pobreza extrema , esas cifras no cuentan toda la historia del país hoy en día .
Según un estudio de 2017 del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo , el cinco por ciento más rico de los hogares chilenos posee más del cincuenta por ciento de la riqueza , mientras que más de la mitad de los trabajadores asalariados apenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
El lema de la campaña para el plebiscito de 1988 que puso fin a la dictadura de Pinochet fue “ La alegría ya viene ” .
Catalina Pérez , la presidenta del partido de izquierda Revolución Democrática y , a sus veintinueve años , una de las miembros más jóvenes del Congreso chileno , me dijo que , para la mayoría de los chilenos , esa alegría nunca llegó .
“ Al ochenta por ciento de la población , le prometieron algo que no le cumplieron .
En lo político , pero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
La amplia disponibilidad de bienes de consumo en Chile y la aparente prosperidad del país enmascaran una marcada desigualdad —entre las más altas de la región— y una fuerza de trabajo presionada hasta el límite .
Los chilenos más pobres gastan casi una cuarta parte de sus salarios mensuales en financiar sus deudas .
Según Forbes , el propio Piñera tiene una fortuna de casi tres mil millones de dólares y su familia está entre las cinco más ricas del país .
En los últimos años , el descontento se ha desbordado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , centradas sobre todo en la educación , pero también en la salud y en el tan criticado sistema privado de pensiones , conocido como las A.F.P .

Una serie de reformas de la constitución en la década de 2000 eliminaron a los senadores designados, pero el deseo de muchos en la izquierda política de reescribir el documento legal fundacional del país no desapareció. Reemplazar la constitución de Pinochet por una nueva sería una forma de romper —finalmente y definitivamente— con el legado de su régimen. “Hay abuelos torturados en dictadura que hoy ven el cierre de un ciclo y dicen ‘me puedo morir tranquilo’ ”, me dijo Catalina Pérez.
En los días posteriores al estallido, a medida que el discurso público se aglutinaba en torno a la cuestión constitucional, los alcaldes de todo el país y de todo el espectro político comenzaron a apoyar públicamente un plebiscito para decidir la cuestión. El 13 de noviembre, Mario Desbordes, el líder del propio partido del presidente Piñera, también expresó su apoyo. Cuando hablamos, en marzo, Desbordes dijo que siempre había sabido que las reformas políticas eran necesarias, pero que la ira que presenció en octubre pasado lo tomó desprevenido. “La mayoría pensábamos que teníamos más tiempo”, me dijo. “Nos sorprende a todos por la violencia”. Desbordes es una figura un tanto anómala entre la élite tradicionalmente aristocrática de la derecha chilena. Creció en la comuna de clase media de Maipú y sirvió como policía durante siete años antes de convertirse en un hombre de negocios y, finalmente, entrar en la política en sus cuarenta. Fue una visita a su madre, me dijo Desbordes, lo que le convenció de que había un amplio apoyo a las protestas. La estación de metro local había sido quemada, y todo el vecindario estaba en la calle, golpeando ollas y sartenes. Como él lo veía, “aquí explotó una olla a presión”.
Una vez que Desbordes había roto con la derecha, era solo cuestión de tiempo. El 15 de noviembre, después de un día histórico de negociación en el Congreso, los partidos políticos llegaron a un acuerdo y se programó un plebiscito para finales de abril.
La pandemia no acabó con la revolución desatada por el estallido, pero sí cambió abruptamente el tema. Los meses de marzo y abril, que se habrían consumido por el tenso período previo a una votación histórica, se dedicaron en cambio a hacer frente a una emergencia de salud pública sin precedentes.
Para mediados de marzo, el gobierno de Piñera había logrado asegurar cerca de novecientos respiradores, y eventualmente expandió el número de camas de cuidados intensivos disponibles de cerca de setecientas a casi tres mil. El presidente y otros líderes políticos usaban cubrebocas en las conferencias de prensa, mientras predicaban el distanciamiento social y el lavado de manos. Chile se convirtió rápidamente en la primera nación sudamericana en número de pruebas por cada mil habitantes (y en agosto seguía como líder de la región, con una tasa comparable a la de Alemania). A pesar de que el número de infecciones, hospitalizaciones y muertes creció constantemente hasta marzo y mediados de abril, el sistema de salud pública no colapsó, ni se agotaron las camas de hospital y los respiradores, como muchos habían temido que ocurriera y como ocurriría en algunos países vecinos.
Fue la respuesta económica al desastre lo que dividió a los partidos políticos en líneas ideológicas predecibles. A mediados de abril, el gobierno de Piñera había comenzado a enfatizar la necesidad de reabrir la economía y, a fines de abril, Piñera anunció un plan de reapertura por etapas que llamó Retorno Seguro. “No existe una contradicción entre proteger la salud y la vida de las personas y proteger sus empleos, ingresos y calidad de vida”, dijo. La estrategia no pretendía suprimir el virus sino mitigar su impacto.
Mientras la izquierda presionaba por subsidios de emergencia para que los trabajadores chilenos pudiesen quedarse en sus casas durante la pandemia, los aliados de Piñera en el Congreso resistieron. Para mayo, con el aumento alarmante de las infecciones y gran parte del país en cuarentena, el debate legislativo estaba estancado en el monto del subsidio familiar que el gobierno pagaría a los más necesitados. Al final, los aliados de Piñera ganaron, y la primera ronda de subsidios fue de solo sesenta y cinco mil pesos, unos ochenta y un dólares. Las familias que atravesaban grandes dificultades en una economía devastada por el coronavirus fueron sometidas a imágenes de senadores que celebraban su victoria legislativa.
Pablo Ortúzar, del centro de estudios conservador I.E.S., me dijo que la estrategia de Piñera era centralizar la respuesta al virus. El índice de aprobación del presidente había bajado hasta un seis por ciento a raíz del estallido. “Esta administración lo vio como una manera de recuperar legitimidad”, dijo Ortúzar. Pronto se hizo evidente que el plan de Piñera para un retorno seguro a la normalidad había sido prematuro. En una entrevista televisiva, Jaime Mañalich, el ministro de Salud, admitió que el virus se había propagado a un ritmo que no había previsto, en parte debido a las condiciones sociales. “Hay un nivel de pobreza y hacinamiento del cual yo no tenía conciencia”, dijo, en otro ejemplo de la sorprendente desconexión entre la élite política y la realidad en la que viven millones de chilenos.
A mediados de mayo, con un aumento de los nuevos casos de más del sesenta por ciento, se impuso una cuarentena estricta en toda la región metropolitana de Santiago, junto con un par de ciudades de provincias. El Ejército y la policía fueron encargados de hacer cumplir la ley y de detener y arrestar a los infractores. Los residentes de Santiago, a los que anteriormente se les permitía salir diariamente, ahora estaban limitados a dos salidas por semana, para hacer compras y otras necesidades. A mediados de junio, Chile tenía una de las tasas de infección per cápita más altas del mundo, y unos días más tarde Mañalich renunció, después de que el sitio web de investigación CIPER revelara una discrepancia entre el número de muertes comunicadas en sus sesiones informativas diarias a la nación y el número, mucho más alto, que envió a la Organización Mundial de la Salud. A finales de junio, más de doscientos setenta y cinco mil chilenos habían dado positivo en las pruebas de COVID-19, y el virus se había cobrado más de cinco mil vidas.
Al igual que los disturbios de las semanas posteriores al estallido hicieron posible un acuerdo sobre un plebiscito, la pandemia y la maltrecha economía presentaron a la izquierda chilena otra oportunidad inesperada. Esta vez, era la oportunidad de reformar las controvertidas pensiones privadas conocidas como A.F.P., que son más o menos como las 401(k) estadounidenses, solo que con míseros retornos. La propuesta permitiría a los trabajadores chilenos retirar el diez por ciento de sus A.F.P. sin penalización. El fantasma del estallido se cernía sobre el debate. “Si se rechaza el retiro se viene una nueva explosión”, dijo un senador. Por su parte, la UDI, el partido conservador fundado por Jaime Guzmán, argumentó que las reformas propuestas eran una solución a corto plazo que tendría consecuencias a largo plazo para la clase media. Pablo Ortúzar me dijo que encontraba frustrante todo el debate. “El problema es que no se discutió sobre el bien común, ni del impacto económico”, dijo. Los trabajadores de la economía informal fueron dejados fuera, y por supuesto aquellos con ahorros se beneficiarían más. Ortúzar vio la presión de la izquierda como algo puramente táctico. “Todo estaba orientado por la polarización de octubre”, dijo. Sin embargo, el voto del Senado fue visto por millones de chilenos. Cuando se aprobó la medida de reforma, muchos barrios de Santiago volvieron a estallar en un cacerolazo festivo. Catalina Pérez me dijo que “el retiro del diez por ciento de fondos de pensiones será recordado como uno de los hitos fundacionales del Chile que nació en octubre”.
A finales de julio, con la curva de coronavirus aplanándose, el país se preparó cautelosamente para reabrir por segunda vez. La última cuarentena que cubría la Zona Cero se levantó el 17 de agosto, y los residentes salieron de sus casas para descubrir que el barrio había sido renovado: muchos de sus coloridos murales y gran parte de los grafitis políticos habían sido cubiertos con pintura fresca, las farolas reparadas, las aceras restauradas. Pronto los manifestantes, ahora en menor número y flanqueados por grandes contingentes de la policía, aparecieron de nuevo en la Plaza Dignidad. Para entonces, algunas partes del país habían estado en un confinamiento continuo durante cuatro meses y medio.
Una tarde de marzo fui con el politólogo Claudio Fuentes a una escuela en La Florida, un barrio de clase trabajadora al sudeste de Santiago. El día era brillante y caluroso, y parecía hacerse más brillante y más caluroso cuanto más nos alejábamos del centro de la ciudad. Esta era una Santiago diferente, descolorida, con menos árboles y avenidas más anchas, y cuadra tras cuadra de viviendas de baja altura.
Mario Desbordes, ex presidente de Renovación Nacional, en su oficina. Fotografía de Tomás Munita para The New Yorker
Fuentes enseña en la Universidad Diego Portales, pero en el período previo a la votación había salido de las aulas y ofrecía talleres sobre la constitución y su historia a grupos comunitarios y escuelas de todo el país. Era un proyecto personal, y me dijo que le resultaba alentador descubrir el interés que había en el tema. El estallido había hecho que la gente estuviera hambrienta de saber más sobre la constitución actual, sobre lo que podría significar el plebiscito. Sin embargo, la misma desconfianza que muchos chilenos sentían hacia la élite política se extendía a él, me dijo Fuentes. Él encontró esto desconcertante, difícil de cuadrar con sus propios antecedentes. Había crecido en San Bernardo, otra comuna obrera al sur de Santiago, hijo de un camionero y una ama de casa. Su apellido no es el típico de clase alta de la élite chilena, ni, con su pelo oscuro y su piel color oliva, se veía como tal. Pero era profesor universitario, había estudiado en el extranjero, a veces incluso aparecía en la televisión, y eso era suficiente. Cada vez que impartía un taller, incluso cuando entraba en espacios que le eran totalmente familiares, tenía que demostrar que pertenecía.
Cuando llegamos a la escuela y nos presentamos, el guardia de seguridad nos informó que el evento había sido cancelado. Nos quedamos allí un momento, estupefactos, hasta que el guardia finalmente sonrió. Era una broma sobre el coronavirus, contada en ese pasado, reciente pero borroso, en el que la gente aún podía bromear sobre el virus. Todos nos reímos, y el guardia nos hizo señas para que entráramos. En la cafetería, unas doscientas sillas de madera con espaldar recto habían sido dispuestas en filas. Mientras esperábamos a los alumnos, charlé con un profesor veterano, alto y delgado, llamado Sergio Salazar, quien me dijo que en la noche del estallido los padres de familia del barrio se habían reunido para proteger la escuela, por si la rabia se desbordaba y alguien atacaba el edificio. Afortunadamente, dijo, no había pasado nada.
Unos minutos después, los estudiantes uniformados entraron, llenando primero las filas traseras, bromeando con sus compañeros, echando unas cuantas miradas ambivalentes a los desconocidos. Fuentes empezó enseguida con preguntas: “¿Cuántos de ustedes saben que hay plebiscito en abril?”. Todos levantaron la mano. Rápidamente estableció lo que estaba en juego en el debate. “¿Cómo —preguntó a los estudiantes— queremos ser gobernados?”.
Lo que siguió fue un debate reflexivo sobre la estructura política de una nación, la mecánica del voto, los derechos y responsabilidades de la ciudadanía, y lo que podría estar por delante si el referéndum se aprobaba. Incluso entonces, los detalles estaban en constante transformación. Solo la semana anterior, el Congreso había ordenado la paridad de género para una asamblea constitucional, en caso de que gane el Apruebo. Se habló de garantías similares para la comunidad mapuche, el grupo indígena más grande de Chile, que constituye más del siete por ciento de la población. Mientras tanto, los estudiantes tenían sus propias preguntas: ¿Por qué no renuncia Piñera? (No puede, por ley.) ¿Quién podría escribir una nueva constitución? (O un grupo de ciudadanos elegidos o un grupo de ciudadanos y legisladores, según el resultado de la votación). ¿Qué podría decir ese nuevo documento? Esta última pregunta no tenía respuesta por el momento, y los que se oponen al plebiscito argumentan que ese es precisamente el peligro. ¿Por qué debería Chile saltar a lo desconocido? ¿Por qué no reformar la constitución existente?


newyorker--2020-10-05--“Lipsticks,” by Nicholas Goodly

“Lipsticks,” by Nicholas Goodly

OVAH No .
5 Not That Innocent Pink Violet Chachki See You Next Tuesday Amanda Lepore ’ s Revenge Nude @ @ @ @ @ re All Gon na Laugh at You I Will Always Love Blue This Is My @ @ @ @ @ Nene Is Very Rich Green Spell on You A Clair Huxtable Hue The Night the @ @ @ @ @ Mutha !
Has Arrived Lips Don ’ t Lie Put a Little Yellow in My @ @ @ @ @ Green of the Desert Bag Lady Blue Metallic Cyndi Mayweather Little Latin Boy in Drag @ @ @ @ @ in the 212 Burnt Sunset Boulevard Iris Apfel Bloom Naomi ’ s Pout C ’ @ @ @ @ @ Matte Divine Intervention Good Witch , Bad Witch Onyx First Lady Proud Mary The Banana-52 @ @ @ @ @ No Wire Hangers Beat for the Gods Barbarella Blue Bette Davis Eyes Opulence Tangerine

Audio: Read by the author.
OVAH No. 5
Not That Innocent Pink
Violet Chachki
See You Next Tuesday
Amanda Lepore’s Revenge
Nude Descending a Staircase
They’re All Gonna Laugh at You
I Will Always Love Blue
This Is My Hair
Electric Twiggy
Grey Gardens
Nene Is Very Rich Green
Spell on You
A Clair Huxtable Hue
The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
Mutha! Has Arrived
Lips Don’t Lie
Put a Little Yellow in My Bowl
Mrs. Bates
Priscilla: Green of the Desert
Bag Lady Blue
Metallic Cyndi Mayweather
Little Latin Boy in Drag
Touch All This Skin
Orange in the 212
Burnt Sunset Boulevard
Iris Apfel Bloom
Naomi’s Pout
C’est Si Bon
Meow
Fleetwood Matte
Divine Intervention
Good Witch, Bad Witch
Onyx First Lady
Proud Mary
The Banana-52’s
Cleopatra
RuPocalypse Red
No Wire Hangers
Beat for the Gods
Barbarella Blue
Bette Davis Eyes
Opulence
Tangerine


newyorker--2020-10-05--Ruth’s Army: R.B.G.’s Former Clerks Show Up

In Manhattan , Trevor Morrison , the dean of N.Y.U.
’ s law school ( he clerked for R.B.G.
, in SCOTUS lingo , in October Term ’ 02 ) , grabbed his computer so that he could teach a class from a hotel room and headed to the District .
Nick Bravin ( O.T .
’ 00 ) , a four-time national fencing champion , got in his car and drove from his Covid refuge on the North Fork of Long Island .
On the other coast , Goodwin Liu ( O.T .
’ 00 ) , a justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his assistant cancel a week ’ s worth of appearances and got a flight east .
Early the following Wednesday morning , a hundred and twenty clerks gathered by the northern entrance of the Court to receive their instructions for the week ’ s ceremonies .
Almost all were dressed in dark suits , though a few accessorized with flashes of bright blue , the Justice ’ s favorite color .
Old friends , some of whom hadn ’ t seen one another in decades , traded elbow bumps and socially distant condolences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Soon the clerks were on the move : through the Maryland Avenue entrance , past the closed cafeteria , up the stairs into the Great Hall , and then out the bronze front doors to the grand marble staircase and plaza , where they broke into six lines roughly twenty deep to greet the Justice ’ s casket .
“ I lost my breath for a moment , ” Bravin said , describing the arrival of the flag-draped coffin .
“ I knew she would have appreciated the overwhelming force of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
Justice Ginsburg believed devoutly that you show up , and she lived her life that way.
” Liz Magill ( O.T .
’ 96 ) , the provost of the University of Virginia , said , “ We felt like an army.
” The pallbearers carried the casket into the Court , and the clerks returned to their staging area to watch a live feed of the ceremony on several large screens .
The Chief Justice joked that R.B.G .
was “ clueless ” about sports , and laughter rippled through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ruth is gone and we grieve , ” prompting sounds of sorrow .
Then began the vigils .
Two clerks at a time stood , in twenty-minute shifts around the clock , for almost forty-eight hours , at the top of the courthouse steps during the day and in the quiet of the Great Hall overnight .
The idea is never to leave a departed Justice alone ; the ritual is an enduring one at the Court , but a Justice hasn ’ t laid in repose for such a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( O.T .
’ 13 ) , the head of the Supreme Court practice at the Orrick firm , had organized the shifts utilizing a spreadsheet sign-up system modelled on the one used by Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s clerks , several years earlier .
Corkran sent an e-mail asking fellow-clerks to sign up for shifts , and within an hour nearly every slot was filled .
A professor from Boston who teaches marijuana law promptly snagged Thursday ’ s 4:20 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. slots .
For two days , the clerks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while mourners took turns paying their respects .
For many , the wait to view the casket took hours .
At 9 P.M. on Thursday , the end of the second day of viewing , the line extended for seven blocks .
The clerks stood perfectly still as people of all ages and races , some in Notorious R.B.G .
garb , said their goodbyes .
Some prayed ; others wept .
Mothers clutched their daughters and tearfully explained who the Justice was and why it was so important to say farewell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to their firms , their courtrooms , and their classrooms .
Bravin headed back to Long Island on the New Jersey Turnpike , arriving just after midnight .
Like many of the other clerks , he tuned in to the Presidential debate on Tuesday , which opened with a question about the Supreme Court and then quickly derailed .
“ I never saw Justice Ginsburg try to shout down an adversary or drown out an opposing view , ” Bravin said .
“ And I worked for her during Bush v. Gore.
@ @

It was like something out of a heist movie, only sadder. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, on Friday, September 18th, her far-flung crew of more than a hundred former clerks dropped everything and headed to the nation’s capital for a final mission: honoring their beloved boss.
In Manhattan, Trevor Morrison, the dean of N.Y.U.’s law school (he clerked for R.B.G., in SCOTUS lingo, in October Term ’02), grabbed his computer so that he could teach a class from a hotel room and headed to the District. Nick Bravin (O.T. ’00), a four-time national fencing champion, got in his car and drove from his Covid refuge on the North Fork of Long Island. On the other coast, Goodwin Liu (O.T. ’00), a justice of the California Supreme Court, had his assistant cancel a week’s worth of appearances and got a flight east.
Early the following Wednesday morning, a hundred and twenty clerks gathered by the northern entrance of the Court to receive their instructions for the week’s ceremonies. Almost all were dressed in dark suits, though a few accessorized with flashes of bright blue, the Justice’s favorite color. Old friends, some of whom hadn’t seen one another in decades, traded elbow bumps and socially distant condolences, their masks making recognition a challenge.
Soon the clerks were on the move: through the Maryland Avenue entrance, past the closed cafeteria, up the stairs into the Great Hall, and then out the bronze front doors to the grand marble staircase and plaza, where they broke into six lines roughly twenty deep to greet the Justice’s casket. “I lost my breath for a moment,” Bravin said, describing the arrival of the flag-draped coffin. “I knew she would have appreciated the overwhelming force of the presence of her clerks. Everyone showed up. Justice Ginsburg believed devoutly that you show up, and she lived her life that way.”
Liz Magill (O.T. ’96), the provost of the University of Virginia, said, “We felt like an army.”
“Why don’t you wait till we get a tree.” Cartoon by P. C. Vey Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
The pallbearers carried the casket into the Court, and the clerks returned to their staging area to watch a live feed of the ceremony on several large screens. The Chief Justice joked that R.B.G. was “clueless” about sports, and laughter rippled through the audience. He then said, “Ruth is gone and we grieve,” prompting sounds of sorrow.
Then began the vigils. Two clerks at a time stood, in twenty-minute shifts around the clock, for almost forty-eight hours, at the top of the courthouse steps during the day and in the quiet of the Great Hall overnight. The idea is never to leave a departed Justice alone; the ritual is an enduring one at the Court, but a Justice hasn’t lain in repose for such a long time in recent history.
Kelsi Brown Corkran (O.T. ’13), the head of the Supreme Court practice at the Orrick firm, had organized the shifts utilizing a spreadsheet sign-up system modelled on the one used by Justice Antonin Scalia’s clerks, several years earlier. Corkran sent an e-mail asking fellow-clerks to sign up for shifts, and within an hour nearly every slot was filled. A professor from Boston who teaches marijuana law promptly snagged Thursday’s 4:20 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. slots.
For two days, the clerks stood by the Justice’s side while mourners took turns paying their respects. For many, the wait to view the casket took hours. At 9 P.M. on Thursday, the end of the second day of viewing, the line extended for seven blocks. The clerks stood perfectly still as people of all ages and races, some in Notorious R.B.G. garb, said their goodbyes. Some prayed; others wept. Mothers clutched their daughters and tearfully explained who the Justice was and why it was so important to say farewell.
In the following days, the clerks returned to their firms, their courtrooms, and their classrooms. Bravin headed back to Long Island on the New Jersey Turnpike, arriving just after midnight. Like many of the other clerks, he tuned in to the Presidential debate on Tuesday, which opened with a question about the Supreme Court and then quickly derailed. “I never saw Justice Ginsburg try to shout down an adversary or drown out an opposing view,” Bravin said. “And I worked for her during Bush v. Gore.” ♦


newyorker--2020-10-05--David Rabe on Nightmares in Daily Life

David Rabe on Nightmares in Daily Life

I woke up one morning with vivid details from a dream at the forefront of my mind , and thought I ’ d try to put them down in a realistic narrative form to see how they looked and what they led to .
I then tried to develop whatever material arose with a claim of pertinence .
Every now and then , I would drop back into the terrain of the original dream , always trying to keep in mind and to follow associations that felt organic , some drawn from day-to-day life .
More or less working the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiction .
At the same time , I tried to follow the story ’ s developing logic , however irrational .
I hoped to be tracking connections and progressions that were natural to the narrative , no matter how absurd .
A lot of what we ’ re living within these days tests our expectations about reality and plausibility , creating a sense that daily life is proceeding like a nightmare ; things that we thought previously impossible keep happening .
I suspect that ’ s because masses of unconscious material are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as if drawn by a black hole ’ s irresistible gravitational pull .
Do you consider this a political story ?
I suppose it ’ s a political story in the sense that it deals with events and concerns that we ’ d like to think politics can address , though I don ’ t think politics has shown evidence of having the ability , or even the willingness , to address them .
So , on that basis , the story is not political .
As for having an agenda—I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It doesn ’ t advocate a list of actions that , if followed , would solve the profound problems faced by the narrator , which is generally what “ having an agenda ” means when applied to fiction .
The story features a character who turns out to be the Trojan Cassandra .
She cites Hesiod ’ s fable of the hawk and the nightingale .
Why did you include those classical elements here ?
The young woman entered the story without a name , but with a prophecy .
I went through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She always had a mysterious place of origin .
At a certain point , as I worked , a character insulted and dismissed his adversaries as “ Cassandras.
” It was at that instant , I think , that the narrator and I had a moment of illumination , in which we thought , more or less as one , Oh , that ’ s who she is .
As for the Hesiod quote , I was doing some random reading , and I came upon it .
I have to say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a place in the story , where Cassandra welcomed it .
And , while both Cassandra and Hesiod are classical , I thought of them more as recognizable and thus helpful in giving the over-all landscape of the story a sense of grounding and authority .
Your Cassandra has a prophecy : “ To prove that we are not animals , that we are above and superior to animals , we will destroy everything that an animal needs to live , and thus obliterate our world and ourselves.
” Do you expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will .
It ’ s certainly the trend .
Rachel Carson initiated modern environmentalism by bringing awareness of the damage we were inflicting on the environment in “ The Sea Around Us , ” in 1951 .
I was eleven .
I can ’ t say I paid close attention at that point .
But I became aware of the book , and , in 1962 , when I was twenty-two , Carson raised the decibels of her warning with “ Silent Spring.
” I remember the moon shot , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The image became a rallying point , a symbol that many of us thought of as an awakening to a sense of the earth ’ s preciousness and precariousness as it hung in the vast dark of space .
I can recall thinking at one point , Well , even if there ’ s only a twenty-per-cent chance that the dangers are as real and extreme as the warnings predict , a twenty-per-cent chance of life on the planet ending is not a gamble we will take .
But , obviously , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainly on hope , I thought that entrepreneurs would see a way to make money by saving the earth , and the whole thing would be recognized and addressed .
Between 1951 and 2020 , between my being eleven and my being eighty , is a lifetime .
Over the decades , millions of words have been written , refining and elaborating on Rachel Carson ’ s concerns .
Countless environmental organizations have been formed and worked tirelessly .
But sometimes it seems that the major accomplishment of the environmental movement has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposition , whose world view and ultimate motive appears to me , if not insane , impenetrable .
Yes , greed , yes , ego , yes , oil , business , and economics as we know them .
But what else ?
The story tries for an answer .
Your hero goes through quite a journey , from domestic inconvenience to a far more grandiose fate in which he remembers a lost love in the midst of disaster .
Did you have that ending in mind from the beginning ?
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started , I had nothing in mind as an ending .
Several times , I thought I ’ d found an ending , though I was never fully satisfied .
Fortunately , other people , you among them , knew better .
I did , too , and continued to think about the material and the questions .
The ending as it now stands , which I feel satisfied with for the first time , arose from another dream that I had much later on .
I awoke with the memory of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , and I recognized them immediately as what I ’ d been missing .
Should we see that ending as , in a sense , allegorical ?
Should we read the whole story that way ?
Or are its allusions less pointed than that ?
I don ’ t think it ’ s allegorical in the traditional sense .
The forces at work are more than themselves , or not only themselves , but what they correlate to is inexact .
Their correlation is not precise , schematic , or even identifiable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works in various forms for several years now , hasn ’ t it ?
I first saw a version of it in 2017 .
Why do you think this one needed to gestate for that period of time ?
I find it ’ s often the case that a given state of mind will only carry me so far in a project .
It ’ s not uncommon for me to begin something , get somewhere with it , and then have to stop and wait for some time to pass , often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Streamers , ” for example , was written in three fairly short , intense bursts , spread out over a seven-year period .

Photograph by Carolyn Contino / Shutterstock
Your story in this week’s issue, “Suffocation Theory,” explores a kind of dreamscape or nightmare-scape of destabilization—of climate, of public events, of private lives—in which all the narrator’s fears seem to materialize at once. How did this ever-changing space come to you?
I woke up one morning with vivid details from a dream at the forefront of my mind, and thought I’d try to put them down in a realistic narrative form to see how they looked and what they led to. I then tried to develop whatever material arose with a claim of pertinence. Every now and then, I would drop back into the terrain of the original dream, always trying to keep in mind and to follow associations that felt organic, some drawn from day-to-day life. More or less working the way I do on any piece of fiction. At the same time, I tried to follow the story’s developing logic, however irrational. I hoped to be tracking connections and progressions that were natural to the narrative, no matter how absurd. A lot of what we’re living within these days tests our expectations about reality and plausibility, creating a sense that daily life is proceeding like a nightmare; things that we thought previously impossible keep happening. I suspect that’s because masses of unconscious material are being summoned into the daylight—not merely allowed—but summoned, as if drawn by a black hole’s irresistible gravitational pull.
Do you consider this a political story?
I suppose it’s a political story in the sense that it deals with events and concerns that we’d like to think politics can address, though I don’t think politics has shown evidence of having the ability, or even the willingness, to address them. So, on that basis, the story is not political. As for having an agenda—I’d say it doesn’t. It doesn’t advocate a list of actions that, if followed, would solve the profound problems faced by the narrator, which is generally what “having an agenda” means when applied to fiction.
The story features a character who turns out to be the Trojan Cassandra. She cites Hesiod’s fable of the hawk and the nightingale. Why did you include those classical elements here?
The young woman entered the story without a name, but with a prophecy. I went through many drafts, as you know. She always had a mysterious place of origin. At a certain point, as I worked, a character insulted and dismissed his adversaries as “Cassandras.” It was at that instant, I think, that the narrator and I had a moment of illumination, in which we thought, more or less as one, Oh, that’s who she is. As for the Hesiod quote, I was doing some random reading, and I came upon it. I have to say, it jumped off the page, demanding a place in the story, where Cassandra welcomed it. And, while both Cassandra and Hesiod are classical, I thought of them more as recognizable and thus helpful in giving the over-all landscape of the story a sense of grounding and authority.
Your Cassandra has a prophecy: “To prove that we are not animals, that we are above and superior to animals, we will destroy everything that an animal needs to live, and thus obliterate our world and ourselves.” Do you expect that to come true?
I worry that it will. It’s certainly the trend. Rachel Carson initiated modern environmentalism by bringing awareness of the damage we were inflicting on the environment in “The Sea Around Us,” in 1951. I was eleven. I can’t say I paid close attention at that point. But I became aware of the book, and, in 1962, when I was twenty-two, Carson raised the decibels of her warning with “Silent Spring.” I remember the moon shot, and those photos of Earth taken from space. The image became a rallying point, a symbol that many of us thought of as an awakening to a sense of the earth’s preciousness and precariousness as it hung in the vast dark of space. I can recall thinking at one point, Well, even if there’s only a twenty-per-cent chance that the dangers are as real and extreme as the warnings predict, a twenty-per-cent chance of life on the planet ending is not a gamble we will take. But, obviously, I was wrong. With an attitude founded mainly on hope, I thought that entrepreneurs would see a way to make money by saving the earth, and the whole thing would be recognized and addressed. Between 1951 and 2020, between my being eleven and my being eighty, is a lifetime. Over the decades, millions of words have been written, refining and elaborating on Rachel Carson’s concerns. Countless environmental organizations have been formed and worked tirelessly. But sometimes it seems that the major accomplishment of the environmental movement has been to awaken, enrage, and organize the opposition, whose world view and ultimate motive appears to me, if not insane, impenetrable. Yes, greed, yes, ego, yes, oil, business, and economics as we know them. But what else? The story tries for an answer.
Your hero goes through quite a journey, from domestic inconvenience to a far more grandiose fate in which he remembers a lost love in the midst of disaster. Did you have that ending in mind from the beginning?
No. I did not. When I started, I had nothing in mind as an ending. Several times, I thought I’d found an ending, though I was never fully satisfied. Fortunately, other people, you among them, knew better. I did, too, and continued to think about the material and the questions. The ending as it now stands, which I feel satisfied with for the first time, arose from another dream that I had much later on. I awoke with the memory of the events and imagery that now end the story, and I recognized them immediately as what I’d been missing.
Should we see that ending as, in a sense, allegorical? Should we read the whole story that way? Or are its allusions less pointed than that?
I don’t think it’s allegorical in the traditional sense. The forces at work are more than themselves, or not only themselves, but what they correlate to is inexact. Their correlation is not precise, schematic, or even identifiable.
The story has been in the works in various forms for several years now, hasn’t it? I first saw a version of it in 2017. Why do you think this one needed to gestate for that period of time?
I find it’s often the case that a given state of mind will only carry me so far in a project. It’s not uncommon for me to begin something, get somewhere with it, and then have to stop and wait for some time to pass, often a lot of time. My play “Streamers,” for example, was written in three fairly short, intense bursts, spread out over a seven-year period.


Cartoon Caption Contest

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

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


newyorker--2020-10-05--The Real Recklessness in Trump’s Discharge from the Hospital

The President ’ s discharge from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is the latest development in an unprecedented medical and political saga .
Over the weekend , as positive test results trickled in from across the Administration and the Republican establishment , two narratives about his illness coalesced .
The first , informed by medical experience and common sense , held that Trump was in real danger ; the second , shaped by politics , proposed that he was basically fine .
On Monday afternoon , Trump tried to lend momentum to the second story .
“ I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center today at 6:30 P.M. , ” he wrote , on Twitter .
“ Feeling really good !
” He added some advice that seemed not just ludicrous but—in light of the fact that more than two hundred and ten thousand Americans have died of the coronavirus—deranged : “ Don ’ t be afraid of Covid .
Don ’ t let it dominate your life .
We have developed , under the Trump Administration , some really great drugs & knowledge.
” Almost certainly , Trump ’ s team will now describe him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his way to defeating the virus , or who has already defeated it—an executive ready to lead , with COVID-19 firmly behind him .
His opponents , by contrast , are sure to cast the discharge as another example of careless behavior from a reality-TV star who is more concerned with optics than science .
Many Americans , meanwhile , may be understandably confused .
Discharge certainly sounds good .
It ’ s reasonable to imagine that , if the President is leaving the hospital , he must be O.K .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discharge doesn ’ t mean—and has never meant—full recovery .
In general , a discharge signifies only that a patient is no longer ill enough to require hospitalization and the continuous monitoring and ready access to therapy that hospitalization offers .
When deciding whether it ’ s safe to discharge a patient , physicians consider many variables .
They ask where a patient is being discharged to , and what level of support he ’ ll have there .
They ask about the chance that his medical condition could worsen abruptly before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An elderly patient being sent home alone to recover from pneumonia is one thing ; an athlete being discharged to a rehabilitation center after knee surgery is another .
Trump ’ s case falls somewhere in between .
He is an older man with a serious condition that we ’ re told is improving , he is in the middle of an illness that could get much worse in the next week , and he is also leaving the hospital for the world ’ s most secure and responsive home .
There , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely by physicians working in the White House Medical Unit , an on-site facility with substantial resources .
If his condition does worsen at the White House , he will have no difficulty gaining readmission to Walter Reed .
From a purely medical perspective , then , caring for Trump at the White House instead of the hospital may not be a wildly irresponsible decision .
Not all patients with fevers , abnormal blood tests , or even lung damage need to—or should—remain hospitalized until they fully recover .
In general , doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital for any longer than absolutely necessary , because hospitalization disrupts sleep , risks new infections , and can lead to elevated stress and other problems .
Doctors also sometimes compromise in the face of patient preferences .
( A person who may benefit from further monitoring may ask to be discharged early to attend her grandson ’ s high-school graduation , for example . )
The risks of hospitalization may be of less concern to the President , who enjoys V.I.P .
treatment at Walter Reed—and he is , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about looking “ weak ” during an election .
Without access to important details about his illness , it ’ s hard to judge the risks of discharge with confidence ; I would probably recommend against it , if the President were under my care .
Still , on medical grounds , it is not outlandish .
From here , a few scenarios are possible .
In the worst case , Trump might have to return to the hospital after his condition abruptly deteriorates .
If that were to happen , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dire outcome or at least a prolonged illness .
It ’ s more likely that he ’ ll continue to improve .
But that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that he ’ ll quickly return to normal .
Many COVID-19 patients , especially those with severe illness , experience fatigue , shortness of breath , cardiovascular problems , and cognitive issues that persist for months after infection .
Some report “ COVID fog ” —they have problems with thinking , and suffer from anxiety and depression .
Even among patients with less severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to report symptoms weeks later .
These problems don ’ t require hospitalization , but they can interfere with a person ’ s ability to engage in everyday activities , to say nothing of governing a country .
A discharged President isn ’ t necessarily a healthy President .
The real recklessness of Trump ’ s discharge lies not so much in his leaving as in the way he has framed his departure .
In telling Americans not to be “ afraid ” of the virus , he has diminished the severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spinning his own illness , and denying its seriousness— “ I feel better than I did 20 years ago !
” he tweeted—he encourages his followers to deny reality .
While receiving the world ’ s best medical care , he tells the rest of us to embrace risk .
Back at the White House , he could pass the virus on to others .
Sean Conley , the White House physician , has assured Americans that Trump “ is back.
” He 's right , in a way : the President is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usual .
• Surviving a severe coronavirus infection is hard .
So is recovering .
• Some hospitals have postponed cancer surgeries because of the coronavirus crisis .
How do doctors assess urgency during a pandemic ?
• It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus .
This five-part public-health plan may be the key .
• The loneliness and solidarity of treating coronavirus patients in New York .
• To fill the vacuum left by the federal government , doctors are relying on informal networks to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Conflict and confusion reign at New York hospitals over how to handle childbirth during the pandemic .
• In countries where the rate of infection threatens to outstrip the capacity of the health system , doctors are confronting ethical quandaries for which nothing in their training prepared them .

The President’s discharge from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is the latest development in an unprecedented medical and political saga. Over the weekend, as positive test results trickled in from across the Administration and the Republican establishment, two narratives about his illness coalesced. The first, informed by medical experience and common sense, held that Trump was in real danger; the second, shaped by politics, proposed that he was basically fine. On Monday afternoon, Trump tried to lend momentum to the second story. “I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M.,” he wrote, on Twitter. “Feeling really good!” He added some advice that seemed not just ludicrous but—in light of the fact that more than two hundred and ten thousand Americans have died of the coronavirus—deranged: “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge.”
Almost certainly, Trump’s team will now describe him as a man who’s well on his way to defeating the virus, or who has already defeated it—an executive ready to lead, with COVID-19 firmly behind him. His opponents, by contrast, are sure to cast the discharge as another example of careless behavior from a reality-TV star who is more concerned with optics than science. Many Americans, meanwhile, may be understandably confused. Discharge certainly sounds good. It’s reasonable to imagine that, if the President is leaving the hospital, he must be O.K.
In fact, as doctors know, hospital discharge doesn’t mean—and has never meant—full recovery. In general, a discharge signifies only that a patient is no longer ill enough to require hospitalization and the continuous monitoring and ready access to therapy that hospitalization offers. When deciding whether it’s safe to discharge a patient, physicians consider many variables. They ask where a patient is being discharged to, and what level of support he’ll have there. They ask about the chance that his medical condition could worsen abruptly before he’s able to get help. An elderly patient being sent home alone to recover from pneumonia is one thing; an athlete being discharged to a rehabilitation center after knee surgery is another. Trump’s case falls somewhere in between. He is an older man with a serious condition that we’re told is improving, he is in the middle of an illness that could get much worse in the next week, and he is also leaving the hospital for the world’s most secure and responsive home. There, Trump’s condition will be watched closely by physicians working in the White House Medical Unit, an on-site facility with substantial resources. If his condition does worsen at the White House, he will have no difficulty gaining readmission to Walter Reed.
From a purely medical perspective, then, caring for Trump at the White House instead of the hospital may not be a wildly irresponsible decision. Not all patients with fevers, abnormal blood tests, or even lung damage need to—or should—remain hospitalized until they fully recover. In general, doctors prefer not to keep patients in the hospital for any longer than absolutely necessary, because hospitalization disrupts sleep, risks new infections, and can lead to elevated stress and other problems. Doctors also sometimes compromise in the face of patient preferences. (A person who may benefit from further monitoring may ask to be discharged early to attend her grandson’s high-school graduation, for example.) The risks of hospitalization may be of less concern to the President, who enjoys V.I.P. treatment at Walter Reed—and he is, of course, worried not about a family event but about looking “weak” during an election. Without access to important details about his illness, it’s hard to judge the risks of discharge with confidence; I would probably recommend against it, if the President were under my care. Still, on medical grounds, it is not outlandish.
From here, a few scenarios are possible. In the worst case, Trump might have to return to the hospital after his condition abruptly deteriorates. If that were to happen, it would be an alarming sign, portending a dire outcome or at least a prolonged illness. It’s more likely that he’ll continue to improve. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll quickly return to normal. Many COVID-19 patients, especially those with severe illness, experience fatigue, shortness of breath, cardiovascular problems, and cognitive issues that persist for months after infection. Some report “COVID fog”—they have problems with thinking, and suffer from anxiety and depression. Even among patients with less severe disease—those who never need hospital-level care—a third continue to report symptoms weeks later. These problems don’t require hospitalization, but they can interfere with a person’s ability to engage in everyday activities, to say nothing of governing a country. A discharged President isn’t necessarily a healthy President.
The real recklessness of Trump’s discharge is not personal; it’s the rest of us that he’s putting in harm’s way. By spinning his own illness, and denying its seriousness—“I feel better than I did 20 years ago!” he tweeted—he encourages his followers to deny reality; while receiving the world’s best medical care, he tells other Americans to embrace risk. After his discharge, Trump arrived at the White House, where he posed, maskless, on a balcony overlooking the South Lawn. He is in the midst of an active coronavirus infection—and so, in the coming days, there’s a good chance that he will pass the virus on to others who work at the White House, which has now become a viral hot zone. He seems determined to be the Superspreader-in-Chief. Sean Conley, the White House physician, has assured Americans that Trump “is back.” In a way, Conley is right. The President is spreading the virus and misinformation, as usual.
This post has been updated to include news developments.
More Medical Dispatches


newyorker--2020-10-05--The Aspirational Android Parenting of “Raised by Wolves”

We , the children ’ s grownups , also have apps .
We have Remind and Konstella and our own version of Seesaw , and then we have e-mails in which the important information is accessed through an attached PDF .
Yesterday , we got an e-mail from the music teacher with tidings of a new app , which the kindergartners were supposed to explore before their class .
We forgot to download the app , but no matter ; the teacher ’ s Internet went out during the session , and the children were riotous and unmuted in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their grownups wearily signed them off .
With all the caveats about having my health and my family ’ s health and the necessities of life , I am struggling , not least with seeing my child grow disillusioned with learning .
I am not working regularly , and so I have the twin pleasures of feeling inadequate both in my professional responsibilities and in my parenting .
On Friday evenings , when my husband and I prepare for a big night in with booze and our phones , he asks me what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually say , “ Something about space.
” The idea of leaving the planet is attractive .
Going to space softens the agonies of the here and now even when the space story is just a refraction of an earthly problem .
At one point this summer , we watched “ Aniara , ” a dour but memorable Swedish film wherein a group of Earth colonists on their way to Mars find themselves immured in their cruiser when they go off course .
The movie is largely about how people cope with periods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was topical to a fault ; I still liked it .
Things about space are never really about space .
Take “ Raised by Wolves , ” a new series on HBO produced by Ridley Scott and set emphatically in another world .
We open with a voice-over , a young person telling us , “ We were the first , the pioneers , but we weren ’ t scared .
We knew that , no matter what happened , Mother and Father would always keep us safe.
” In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arresting I have seen on television , a small craft hurtles toward the face of a planet that we are told is called Kepler-22b .
The craft zooms past rock formations and desert landscapes and comes to a halt teetering over a giant hole .
The camera takes us inside the metal cylinder , where we see a feminine white face in a peculiar metal helmet .
A pleasant male voice offscreen says , “ Nice to meet you , Mother .
Did you sustain any damage during the landing ?
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ask ?
” she replies .
The male speaker , a Black figure in the same helmet and a silvery-blue bodysuit , explains , “ My programming is telling me that it is a priority for me .
Your well-being.
” “ And yours will be mine , ” she responds .
The craft moves threateningly on the precipice .
“ Quickly , Mother , ” he says , and they begin to briskly unload their luggage .
“ Would you like to hear a joke while we work this out ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weight of the craft on his back .
We understand that they are androids because of their formal diction and their phenomenal strength .
“ Retrievable , ” Mother says , watching the craft plummet down the hole , before she hoists herself over the edge like a spider .
Father tells her his joke as they walk together across the strange terrain , metal suitcases in hand .
An odd mist pours over the jagged teeth of the low mountaintops that surround them .
They find their spot , a stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like Joshua trees .
One piece of spherical luggage unfolds into a large orange yurt .
Inside the yurt , Mother lies back and Father attaches cords to her .
“ Initiating Trimester 1 , ” he says , smiling warmly .
Earth , we learn , has been torn apart by war between a group of religious fundamentalists called the Mithraic , who follow a god called Sol , and militant atheists .
While Mother and Father are Mithraic technology , they have been programmed by someone from the atheist camp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adulthood by dint of science and not belief .
They begin with a multiracial group of six .
The voice-over continues : “ It was hard keeping us alive , but Mother and Father never complained , never got tired or lost their temper .
And they never took time for themselves , always making sure we were happy .
.
.
.
All the bad stuff that happened wasn ’ t their fault .
The future ’ s invisible , even for androids.
” I don ’ t think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first episode , five of Mother and Father ’ s six children die , leaving only Campion , played by Winta McGrath .
They are soon replaced with new children when the surviving Mithraic community arrives on Kepler-22b in an “ Ark , ” changing the course of human settlement on the planet ( and possibly in the universe ) .
In a show that is full of predictable paradoxes , Mother and Father ’ s story is the most predictable but also the most compelling , a subset of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is programming , and what is personality ?
As the show progresses , Mother is revealed to be a repurposed killing machine known as a Necromancer , while Father is a “ generic service mode , ” her kind , even-tempered helpmeet .
Amanda Collin , as Mother , and Abubakar Salim , as Father , deliver virtuoso performances , toggling between warmth and menace , being and nothingness .
You miss them when they are not onscreen ; you root for their turn toward the human even when it feels like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” for all that it plays with the technological future , and despite its beautiful aesthetic—everything shot in a sleek silvery light , reminiscent of Scott ’ s film “ Prometheus ” —is a bit traditionalist in its prognostications .
Even in our radical post-Earth future , the Family shall have a Mother and a Father .
The show almost reifies the link between femininity and gestation , eventually subverting it with a hard-to-watch but classic Ridley Scott moment in the final episode .
In the moments when Mother assumes her Necromancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flying through the air in a crucifix pose , it is simultaneously visually stunning and kind of goofy .
You can almost picture the cross-stitch hanging on the rough-hewn walls of their dwelling : “ If mama ain ’ t happy , ain ’ t nobody happy.
” In a beautifully comic moment after things begin to unravel in the androids ’ domicile , Father chides Mother for spending so many furtive hours away from their settlement—he fears that she is “ not properly imprinting ” the children .
Even android mothers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show is haunted by Abrahamic ghosts .
The Mithraic plot feels familiar almost to a fault , notwithstanding the fine performances of the five children in Mother and Father ’ s group , and of Travis Fimmel and Niamh Algar , playing two atheists who pose as a Mithraic power couple on the Ark , and who , like the androids , are raising a little boy who is not their biological child .
There are echoes of Cain and Abel ; Isaac and Ishmael ; the Annunciation .
And then there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were themselves named by the Mormon settlers who trudged through the dust of the Mojave .
The androids ’ settlement lies next to the coiled skeleton of a giant serpent .
Though I watched “ Raised by Wolves ” to escape—tearing through the first five episodes in a single weekend—it threw my terrestrial problems into stark relief .
I find the show transporting , corny , and unexpectedly relatable .
As I watch , I can ’ t stop thinking about how much better a job the androids are doing than my husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Mother is killing it , ” I whispered admiringly during one episode , my fretful firstborn grinding her teeth in her bunk bed upstairs .
Never mind that almost all the original children perished , that they eat fungus and sinister spuds and sleep under burlap .
Never mind that Mother murders a lot of humans in Episode 1 .
It doesn ’ t matter .
Mother and Father are there for the kids , and , in their android way , for each other .
The solipsism born of social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see everything in relation to my current problem , which is online kindergarten .
My kindergartner , who loves books and wants to be able to read , especially loathes Lexia , the literacy app , which kills me .
I sit with her to do it .
“ Find the letter ‘ X , ’ ” a woman ’ s robotic voice—not at all the warm tones of Mother—instructs her over an array of letters .
My daughter knows her letters ; if she taps the wrong one via a slip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she pays for it with exhortation after exhortation : “ Find the letter ‘ X.
’ Find the letter ‘ X.
’ Find the letter ‘ X.
’ ” I try not to say how I feel when we go through these exercises .
I can ’ t tell her not to hate them or that they aren ’ t boring .
She wriggles with frustration , and every day it ’ s more of a production to get her to sign on and sit still .
As on Kepler-22b , machines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , for the most part , ours are not up to the task .
We have the iPad and the Chromebook ; we have Lexia and DreamBox and Seesaw and codeSpark and myOn .
We have sumptuous entertainments .
But none of these things can solve the problem of needing a hug , of needing to touch , of needing to be in school for all the many reasons kids need school , from the joyful ( to learn , to socialize ) to the tragic ( to be fed , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep an open mind about what Chromebook school might do for my child ; I live much of my own life on a screen , after all .
But I ’ m seduced by the premise of “ Raised by Wolves , ” by the notion of Mother and Father as machines who cheerfully rear the children and hide their lessons in parables and in the chores of daily life .
Their tech is beautiful , and there ’ s not a screen in sight .

My older child is doing online kindergarten, and it is not going very well. Online kindergarten takes place in two or three discrete chunks between the hours of eight-fifteen and two-twenty, and the schedule is different every day of the week. The teacher is heroic, but the fact remains that the main event is twenty daily minutes of a humming, glitching grid of faces. The children are supposed to do things in their main app, Seesaw, where small red notifications of the kind that haunt adult dreams pile up. There is also a math app called Dream Box and a reading app called Lexia and a video app called BrainPOP, which is not part of the kindergarten curriculum but which my daughter can use to watch animated videos about elections or ancient Egypt. There’s an app that looks like a video game but will allegedly teach her how to code.
We, the children’s grownups, also have apps. We have Remind and Konstella and our own version of Seesaw, and then we have e-mails in which the important information is accessed through an attached PDF. Yesterday, we got an e-mail from the music teacher with tidings of a new app, which the kindergartners were supposed to explore before their class. We forgot to download the app, but no matter; the teacher’s Internet went out during the session, and the children were riotous and unmuted in their grid until, one by one, their grownups wearily signed them off.
With all the caveats about having my health and my family’s health and the necessities of life, I am struggling, not least with seeing my child grow disillusioned with learning. I am not working regularly, and so I have the twin pleasures of feeling inadequate both in my professional responsibilities and in my parenting. On Friday evenings, when my husband and I prepare for a big night in with booze and our phones, he asks me what I want to watch, and I usually say, “Something about space.” The idea of leaving the planet is attractive.
Going to space softens the agonies of the here and now even when the space story is just a refraction of an earthly problem. At one point this summer, we watched “Aniara,” a dour but memorable Swedish film wherein a group of Earth colonists on their way to Mars find themselves immured in their cruiser when they go off course. The movie is largely about how people cope with periods of confinement with no set end date. This was topical to a fault; I still liked it.
Things about space are never really about space. Take “Raised by Wolves,” a new series on HBO produced by Ridley Scott and set emphatically in another world. We open with a voice-over, a young person telling us, “We were the first, the pioneers, but we weren’t scared. We knew that, no matter what happened, Mother and Father would always keep us safe.”
In the first episode, one of the most arresting I have seen on television, a small craft hurtles toward the face of a planet that we are told is called Kepler-22b. The craft zooms past rock formations and desert landscapes and comes to a halt teetering over a giant hole. The camera takes us inside the metal cylinder, where we see a feminine white face in a peculiar metal helmet. A pleasant male voice offscreen says, “Nice to meet you, Mother. Did you sustain any damage during the landing?” “No, no damage. Why do you ask?” she replies. The male speaker, a Black figure in the same helmet and a silvery-blue bodysuit, explains, “My programming is telling me that it is a priority for me. Your well-being.” “And yours will be mine,” she responds. The craft moves threateningly on the precipice. “Quickly, Mother,” he says, and they begin to briskly unload their luggage. “Would you like to hear a joke while we work this out?” he asks, as he balances the weight of the craft on his back.
We understand that they are androids because of their formal diction and their phenomenal strength. “Retrievable,” Mother says, watching the craft plummet down the hole, before she hoists herself over the edge like a spider. Father tells her his joke as they walk together across the strange terrain, metal suitcases in hand. An odd mist pours over the jagged teeth of the low mountaintops that surround them. They find their spot, a stone outcropping next to a field of what look like Joshua trees. One piece of spherical luggage unfolds into a large orange yurt. Inside the yurt, Mother lies back and Father attaches cords to her. “Initiating Trimester 1,” he says, smiling warmly.
Earth, we learn, has been torn apart by war between a group of religious fundamentalists called the Mithraic, who follow a god called Sol, and militant atheists. While Mother and Father are Mithraic technology, they have been programmed by someone from the atheist camp, and tasked with raising human embryos to adulthood by dint of science and not belief. They begin with a multiracial group of six. The voice-over continues: “It was hard keeping us alive, but Mother and Father never complained, never got tired or lost their temper. And they never took time for themselves, always making sure we were happy. . . . All the bad stuff that happened wasn’t their fault. The future’s invisible, even for androids.” I don’t think it’s a spoiler to mention that, in the first episode, five of Mother and Father’s six children die, leaving only Campion, played by Winta McGrath. They are soon replaced with new children when the surviving Mithraic community arrives on Kepler-22b in an “Ark,” changing the course of human settlement on the planet (and possibly in the universe).
In a show that is full of predictable paradoxes, Mother and Father’s story is the most predictable but also the most compelling, a subset of the nature-versus-nurture debate for the post-singularity age: What is programming, and what is personality? As the show progresses, Mother is revealed to be a repurposed killing machine known as a Necromancer, while Father is a “generic service model,” her kind, even-tempered helpmeet. Amanda Collin, as Mother, and Abubakar Salim, as Father, deliver virtuoso performances, toggling between warmth and menace, being and nothingness. You miss them when they are not onscreen; you root for their turn toward the human even when it feels like a cheat.
“Raised by Wolves,” for all that it plays with the technological future, and despite its beautiful aesthetic—everything shot in a sleek silvery light, reminiscent of Scott’s film “Prometheus”—is a bit traditionalist in its prognostications. Even in our radical post-Earth future, the Family shall have a Mother and a Father. The show almost reifies the link between femininity and gestation, eventually subverting it with a hard-to-watch but classic Ridley Scott moment in the final episode. In the moments when Mother assumes her Necromancer form, a bronzed angel of destruction flying through the air in a crucifix pose, it is simultaneously visually stunning and kind of goofy. You can almost picture the cross-stitch hanging on the rough-hewn walls of their dwelling: “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” In a beautifully comic moment after things begin to unravel in the androids’ domicile, Father chides Mother for spending so many furtive hours away from their settlement—he fears that she is “not properly imprinting” the children. Even android mothers can’t have it all.
The show is haunted by Abrahamic ghosts. The Mithraic plot feels familiar almost to a fault, notwithstanding the fine performances of the five children in Mother and Father’s group, and of Travis Fimmel and Niamh Algar, playing two atheists who pose as a Mithraic power couple on the Ark, and who, like the androids, are raising a little boy who is not their biological child. There are echoes of Cain and Abel; Isaac and Ishmael; the Annunciation. And then there are those trees like Joshua trees, which were themselves named by the Mormon settlers who trudged through the dust of the Mojave. The androids’ settlement lies next to the coiled skeleton of a giant serpent.


newyorker--2020-10-05--Could the Coronavirus Stop Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation?

But , in a plot twist that would likely be rejected in Hollywood as too contrived to be believable , the White House ceremony , on September 26th , in which Trump announced Barrett ’ s nomination may have spread the coronavirus to enough Republican senators to imperil her confirmation .
Some hundred and fifty people attended the festive outdoor ceremony , including five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Virtually all of them ignored the Trump Administration ’ s own public-health guidelines by sitting shoulder to shoulder and , for the most part , without masks .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , again without masks .
A week later , the President had been hospitalized with COVID-19 , which had also infected the First Lady , several top White House advisers , and , more crucially for Barrett ’ s confirmation vote , two Republican Senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee : Thom Tillis , of North Carolina , and Mike Lee , of Utah .
( Senator Ron Johnson , a Republican of Wisconsin , also tested positive for the coronavirus last week , but he is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two other Republican Judiciary Committee members—Ben Sasse , of Nebraska , and Ted Cruz , of Texas—said that they had tested negative but , on medical advice , were self-quarantining .
Few if any would bet against McConnell , given the Republicans ’ three-vote majority in the Senate and his lifelong devotion to winning at any cost .
The Senate ’ s arcane rules give an overwhelming procedural advantage to the Majority Leader .
And McConnell can be counted on to use every parliamentary trick in the book .
Further , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court with conservative justices , and the chance to fill the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat with her philosophical opposite has given him the political opportunity of a lifetime .
But , despite all this , several experts say that Barrett ’ s path has grown narrower .
The Republicans still hold almost every procedural advantage , but they are up against two forces of nature : time and COVID-19 .
On Saturday , McConnell announced that , for the safety of its members , the Senate would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally planned .
The recess , however , did not extend to Barrett ’ s confirmation process .
The Senate Judiciary Committee , McConnell said , would continue to push ahead with hearings , even if it meant that some members had to participate virtually , rather than in person .
Senator Chuck Schumer , the Minority Leader , objected , arguing that it was “ too dangerous to have the Senate in session ” and “ also too dangerous for committee hearings to continue.
” In a statement released on Monday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Judiciary Committee , as well as relevant staff members , test negative for COVID-19 on two consecutive days before participating in any hearing .
If Senator Lindsey Graham , the chairman of the Judiciary Committee , and McConnell don ’ t implement “ a thorough testing approach , ” Schumer wrote , it would be “ intentionally reckless , and could reasonably lead some to wonder if Chairman Graham and Leader McConnell may not want to know the results because it could delay this already illegitimate process.
” For now , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pressing forward at breakneck speed , regardless of past statements from McConnell defending intransigence and inaction in the Senate .
He famously obstructed the confirmation of President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland , in 2016 , arguing that the seat should not be filled because only nine months remained before the election .
Until now , McConnell has fashioned himself as an institutionalist , proclaiming , in a 2016 memoir , that the Senate should be “ allowed to work the way it was designed to—meaning a place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deliberation and debate , as well as input from both the majority and minority parties.
” A glance at the timeline explains why McConnell is in such a rush .
Were Graham to stick to the original schedule , the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold four days of public hearings , beginning the week of October 12th .
Once those hearings end , any member of the committee can ask for a “ holdover ” for an additional week before the committee votes .
If the Democrats exercise that option , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until around October 22nd .
After that , McConnell would face additional hurdles on the Senate floor , which likely would delay the final confirmation vote to the very end of October , conceivably even Halloween .
Any slippage , and it would collide unacceptably with the election on November 3rd , delaying the vote until the so-called lame-duck session .
Because of the time crunch , experts say that the Democrats could try to use a parliamentary ploy to throw a wrench in the works .
The Democratic members of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No nomination can be advanced to the Senate floor without a majority of the twenty-two members of the committee , twelve of whom are currently Republicans , being physically present to vote .
The math is a bit complicated , but if all but one of the ten Democrats “ took a walk , ” as the move is called , leaving just a single Democratic member to demand the quorum vote , and at least two Republicans continue to be absent owing to the coronavirus , there wouldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In theory , the nominee could stay bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee until the numbers change .
One Democratic Senate aide familiar with the process told me , “ It ’ s almost a battle of attendance.
” But all of this would depend on an interpretation of the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s rules .
As written , they say that no nomination can move forward “ unless a majority of the committee is actually present.
” But does “ actually present ” mean the members have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remotely ?
Could infected senators participate while wearing personal protective equipment ?
In the past , “ actually present ” has meant physically in the room .
But , during the pandemic , the standing rules have been altered to enable remote participation for much of the Senate ’ s business .
Research provided by Senate Republicans shows that , since the spring , the Judiciary Committee has held twenty-one hearings in which there was some virtual participation , including hearings , in May , on Justin Walker ’ s nomination to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in none of those instances did Democrats demand a quorum vote , or report out a bill or nomination , situations that traditionally have required the members ’ physical presence .
Thom Tillis and Mike Lee , who have tested positive for the coronavirus , and Ben Sasse and Ted Cruz , who are observing self-imposed quarantines , have said that they expect to be able to participate in an in-person committee vote by October 22nd .
If , however , Senators Tillis and Lee are still absent when the committee needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Republican members of the committee fall ill , it ’ s conceivable that the Democrats on the committee will call for a quorum , and delay Barrett ’ s nomination—perhaps decisively .
Faced with such a roadblock , McConnell might find a way to sidestep the Senate Judiciary Committee entirely .
He could file a motion to discharge , and send the nomination directly to the Senate floor .
But this would break with both precedent and the Senate ’ s norms .
If the oversight function of the committee of jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed inconvenient , during a confirmation of a lifetime appointee to the country ’ s highest court , it could very well damage the legitimacy of the whole process .
It surely would unleash a huge outcry .
Short of that , the Republicans on the committee could always try to change the rules .
Or , if two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee were too incapacitated to vote in person , McConnell might be able to name replacements .
Assuming that Barrett ’ s nomination reaches the Senate floor—which is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the coronavirus .
Republicans have a 53–47 majority .
But two Republican senators , Susan Collins , of Maine , and Lisa Murkowski , of Alaska , are on record opposing any vote on a Supreme Court nominee so late in the campaign season .
This shaves down the majority to a perilous point .
If three Republican senators are still absent at the end of the month , and if Murkowski and Collins hold firm , McConnell would be short of the necessary votes to confirm Barrett .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow senators to vote remotely , but that would require a change in the standing rules of the Senate and would upend so many norms that it would likely prove incendiary—not that that would necessarily stop McConnell .
In other words , Barrett ’ s chances are slightly less good than they were ten days ago , but it would still take an awful lot of extraordinary conditions for her nomination to falter .
Clearly , the odds are long for the Democrats .
But , if the Trump Presidency has taught us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no plot twist , no matter how wild , is beyond belief .

Ten days ago, Amy Coney Barrett’s path to the Supreme Court seemed almost as rosy as the famous White House garden in which President Donald Trump nominated her. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed sure that he had the votes necessary to get her confirmed, regardless of the looming November 3rd election.
But, in a plot twist that would likely be rejected in Hollywood as too contrived to be believable, the White House ceremony, on September 26th, in which Trump announced Barrett’s nomination may have spread the coronavirus to enough Republican senators to imperil her confirmation. Some hundred and fifty people attended the festive outdoor ceremony, including five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Virtually all of them ignored the Trump Administration’s own public-health guidelines by sitting shoulder to shoulder and, for the most part, without masks. Many of the guests also mingled inside the White House, again without masks.
A week later, the President had been hospitalized with COVID-19, which had also infected the First Lady, several top White House advisers, and, more crucially for Barrett’s confirmation vote, two Republican senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee: Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, and Mike Lee, of Utah. (Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican of Wisconsin, also tested positive for the coronavirus last week, but he is not a member of the Judiciary Committee.) Two other Republican Judiciary Committee members—Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, and Ted Cruz, of Texas—said that they had tested negative but, on medical advice, were self-quarantining.
Few if any would bet against McConnell, given the Republicans’ three-vote majority in the Senate and his lifelong devotion to winning at any cost. The Senate’s arcane rules give an overwhelming procedural advantage to the Majority Leader. And McConnell can be counted on to use every parliamentary trick in the book. Further, he has staked his legacy on stocking the Supreme Court with conservative Justices, and the chance to fill the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat with her philosophical opposite has given him the political opportunity of a lifetime.
But, despite all this, several experts say that Barrett’s path has grown narrower. The Republicans still hold almost every procedural advantage, but they are up against two forces of nature: time and COVID-19.
On Saturday, McConnell announced that, for the safety of its members, the Senate would not meet this week, as had been originally planned. The recess, however, did not extend to Barrett’s confirmation process. The Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell said, would continue to push ahead with hearings, even if it meant that some members had to participate virtually, rather than in person.
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader, objected, arguing that it was “too dangerous to have the Senate in session” and “also too dangerous for committee hearings to continue.” In a statement released on Monday morning, he demanded that all senators on the Judiciary Committee, as well as relevant staff members, test negative for COVID-19 on two consecutive days before participating in any hearing. If Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and McConnell don’t implement “a thorough testing approach,” Schumer wrote, it would be “intentionally reckless, and could reasonably lead some to wonder if Chairman Graham and Leader McConnell may not want to know the results because it could delay this already illegitimate process.”
For now, the Republicans are ignoring the Democrats’ objections and pressing forward at breakneck speed, regardless of past statements from McConnell defending intransigence and inaction in the Senate. He famously obstructed the confirmation of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, in 2016, arguing that the seat should not be filled because only nine months remained before the election. Until now, McConnell has fashioned himself as an institutionalist, proclaiming, in a 2016 memoir, that the Senate should be “allowed to work the way it was designed to—meaning a place where nothing is decided without a good dose of deliberation and debate, as well as input from both the majority and minority parties.”
A glance at the timeline explains why McConnell is in such a rush. Were Graham to stick to the original schedule, the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold four days of public hearings, beginning the week of October 12th. Once those hearings end, any member of the committee can ask for a “holdover” for an additional week before the committee votes. If the Democrats exercise that option, the committee vote would then be pushed back until around October 22nd. After that, McConnell would face additional hurdles on the Senate floor, which likely would delay the final confirmation vote to the very end of October, conceivably even Halloween. Any slippage, and it would collide unacceptably with the election on November 3rd, delaying the vote until the so-called lame-duck session.
Because of the time crunch, experts say that the Democrats could try to use a parliamentary ploy to throw a wrench in the works. The Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee could demand a quorum vote. No nomination can be advanced to the Senate floor without a majority of the twenty-two members of the committee, twelve of whom are currently Republicans, being physically present to vote. The math is a bit complicated, but if all but one of the ten Democrats “took a walk,” as the move is called, leaving just a single Democratic member to demand the quorum vote, and at least two Republicans continue to be absent owing to the coronavirus, there wouldn’t be enough members present to provide the quorum. In theory, the nominee could stay bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee until the numbers change. One Democratic Senate aide familiar with the process told me, “It’s almost a battle of attendance.”
But all of this would depend on an interpretation of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rules. As written, they say that no nomination can move forward “unless a majority of the committee is actually present.” But does “actually present” mean the members have to be present in the flesh, as opposed to remotely? Could infected senators participate while wearing personal protective equipment? In the past, “actually present” has meant physically in the room. But, during the pandemic, the standing rules have been altered to enable remote participation for much of the Senate’s business. Research provided by Senate Republicans shows that, since the spring, the Judiciary Committee has held twenty-one hearings in which there was some virtual participation, including hearings, in May, on Justin Walker’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. But in none of those instances did Democrats demand a quorum vote, or report out a bill or nomination, situations that traditionally have required the members’ physical presence.


newyorker--2020-10-05--The Election, as Seen from Swing States

The Election, as Seen from Swing States

Joe Biden leads the Presidential race in Pennsylvania by about ten per cent , according to most polls , but @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t know it on the ground .
Republicans in the state have organized @ @ @ @ @ recent years , and , while Griswold was driving to Biden ’ s working-class birthplace @ @ @ @ @ Trump signs blanketing the lawns and roads .
Peter Slevin , reporting from Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ there organized early , to avoid the mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016 of @ @ @ @ @ .
Even so , Biden ’ s campaign has declined to do risky in-person events @ @ @ @ @ , until recently , has proceeded as if the coronavirus had never happened .

Download a transcript.
Photograph by Justin Merriman / Bloomberg / Getty
Joe Biden leads the Presidential race in Pennsylvania by about ten per cent, according to most polls, but Eliza Griswold says that you wouldn’t know it on the ground. Republicans in the state have organized a huge registration drive in recent years, and, while Griswold was driving to Biden’s working-class birthplace of Scranton, she saw Trump signs blanketing the lawns and roads. Peter Slevin, reporting from Wisconsin, tells David Remnick that Democrats there organized early, to avoid the mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016 of taking the state for granted. Even so, Biden’s campaign has declined to do risky in-person events, but the Trump campaign, until recently, has proceeded as if the coronavirus had never happened.