newyorker--2020-02-05--Aesop’s Fables Written After a Bad Breakup

A squirrel one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes , hanging from a vine trained along the highest branches of a tree .
He thought , I should like to eat those grapes , for they would provide me with great nourishment .
Just then , a snake slithered by .
“ Please , ” said the snake seductively .
“ I am hungry , and yet , because of my stature , I can not reach the top of the tree.
” “ Let me help you , ” the squirrel replied , for he was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of nice to be needed .
The squirrel scurried up the tree and fetched a fistful of grapes .
He gave them to the snake , who gratefully ate the grapes in one gulp .
The squirrel was so pleased to be of assistance that he forgot his own hunger entirely .
Years later , the snake would cite this as an example of how the squirrel had always been a pushover who never just said what he wanted , which , I guess—let ’ s sue the squirrel for trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toiled and toiled to build his first nest , adding a twig here , a piece of straw there .
After many months of labor , he had constructed a suitable home and happily settled into it .
Soon a beautiful robin began to visit his nest .
The first time she spent an evening there , she said , “ Nice place , ” and the sparrow ’ s tiny heart swelled with pride .
Some months later , after the beautiful robin had begun regularly spending nights with the sparrow at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corner of the nest in which to store her things .
The sparrow waited just a little too long to reply , which prompted the robin to inquire , “ Can I ask what , exactly , are we doing here ?
” and , when he balked at that , too , the robin responded by gathering up her things and accusing the sparrow of being a sloppy , overgrown hatchling who slept in a pile of twigs and drank nectar straight from the flower .
“ If my place is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ then why would you want to keep your belongings here in the first place ?
” But , alas , it was too late—the robin had already flown away .
The sparrow knew one thing for certain—she was definitely going to tweet about this .
A wolf hunted all day , and , after his efforts , he at last returned with a king ’ s feast—a deer , several rabbits , and a pheasant .
He asked his companion , the fox , if she would like a plate prepared for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am so full , ” she said .
Yet , throughout the evening , each time the fox passed by , she would take a small bite from the wolf ’ s plate .
“ Are you sure you don ’ t just want your own plate ?
” asked the wolf .
“ It ’ s really no trouble.
” “ No , no , ” the fox declined , reaching for another bite of pheasant .
“ I couldn ’ t possibly .
I ’ m stuffed.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ate , bite by bite , until she had consumed two rabbits , most of the pheasant , and all of the good parts of the deer .
Meanwhile , the wolf , who was left with scraps , went hungry .
An Iberian ribbed newt and a salamander sat together on a dusty road , enjoying the glow of the midday sun .
A small green snake emerged from the nearby grass , looking quite content .
As he slithered past , he gave a nod of his head .
“ Beautiful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he asked cheerily .
In response , the Iberian ribbed newt arched his back and tucked his head into his chest—sharp , spiny ribs coated in poison burst through his skin .
He thrashed his newly armored body about , the horrifying spines glittering .
The snake gasped and nearly tied himself in knots trying to speedily slither away .
The newt grinned , retracting his poisonous spines into his skin .
That evening , the salamander ended things .
And from then on , the ribbed newt angrily warned anyone interested—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn a valuable lesson from him and stay far , far away from the salamander .
“ She , ” he would state , a little too loudly , “ is totally crazy.
” A pig and a field mouse were enjoying a bright summer ’ s afternoon , strolling through the park .
“ Look , ” said the pig , gesturing toward a majestic eagle in the distance .
“ What a beautiful eagle !
” They continued on their way in agreeable silence .
You see , the field mouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pig had said was true—she was an objectively beautiful eagle—and the field mouse , because she was an adult , understood that this didn ’ t mean that the pig was , like , into to the eagle and so didn ’ t make a whole goddam thing of it .
In the dying light of dusk , two mayflies sat together on a leaf , looking quite unhappy indeed .
“ It ’ s fine , ” said the other .
“ I just never thought of myself as—you know ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I said , ” the second mayfly said , curtly , “ that it ’ s fine.
” There they remained , perched together on the leaf in uncomfortable silence for several moments more .
“ But I must remind you that I ’ m not exactly getting any younger , ” the second mayfly finally continued .
“ I ’ m already sixteen hours old .
I expect I have another seven hours left to live—eight , if I ’ m lucky .
This was made known to you when first we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remembering those sparkling early moments , so long ago .
But she had been a mere twelve hours old then , and quite naïve .
The first mayfly rubbed his hands together , as he was wont to do when feeling anxious .
“ You know , it ’ s fine .
It ’ s fine !
” the second mayfly said briskly .
“ You were very clear from the beginning , and I should have— ” Her speech was interrupted when the other mayfly suddenly clasped her thorax tightly with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m so sorry , ” he whispered , squeezing tightly once more and releasing her .
Then , with three swift flaps of his wings , he was gone , as quickly as he had arrived .
He got another mayfly pregnant , like , an hour later .
Evening fell soft upon the savannah , and the giraffe slept soundly , curled up on the ground .
Here , as the giraffe slumbered , the gazelle was finally able to study him , and many truths became apparent to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How could she not have realized these things before ?
Still gazing upon the giraffe , she laid a hoof on his back—gently , so as not to disturb him—and murmured , “ Goodbye.
” Then she galloped off into the night and was gone .
He had never been hot and interesting , at all , she had realized .
It was just that he was really tall .

Illustration from Alamy
A squirrel one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes, hanging from a vine trained along the highest branches of a tree. He thought, I should like to eat those grapes, for they would provide me with great nourishment. Just then, a snake slithered by.
“Please,” said the snake seductively. “I am hungry, and yet, because of my stature, I cannot reach the top of the tree.”
“Let me help you,” the squirrel replied, for he was a kind squirrel, and also it was sort of nice to be needed.
The squirrel scurried up the tree and fetched a fistful of grapes. He gave them to the snake, who gratefully ate the grapes in one gulp. The squirrel was so pleased to be of assistance that he forgot his own hunger entirely.
Years later, the snake would cite this as an example of how the squirrel had always been a pushover who never just said what he wanted, which, I guess—let’s sue the squirrel for trying to be a nice guy?
A sparrow toiled and toiled to build his first nest, adding a twig here, a piece of straw there. After many months of labor, he had constructed a suitable home and happily settled into it.
Soon a beautiful robin began to visit his nest. The first time she spent an evening there, she said, “Nice place,” and the sparrow’s tiny heart swelled with pride.
Some months later, after the beautiful robin had begun regularly spending nights with the sparrow at his nest, she requested a small corner of the nest in which to store her things.
The sparrow waited just a little too long to reply, which prompted the robin to inquire, “Can I ask what, exactly, are we doing here?” and, when he balked at that, too, the robin responded by gathering up her things and accusing the sparrow of being a sloppy, overgrown hatchling who slept in a pile of twigs and drank nectar straight from the flower.
“If my place is so disagreeable,” the sparrow cried, “then why would you want to keep your belongings here in the first place?” But, alas, it was too late—the robin had already flown away.
The sparrow knew one thing for certain—she was definitely going to tweet about this.
A wolf hunted all day, and, after his efforts, he at last returned with a king’s feast—a deer, several rabbits, and a pheasant.
He asked his companion, the fox, if she would like a plate prepared for her, but she graciously declined. “I am so full,” she said.
Yet, throughout the evening, each time the fox passed by, she would take a small bite from the wolf’s plate.
“Are you sure you don’t just want your own plate?” asked the wolf. “It’s really no trouble.”
“No, no,” the fox declined, reaching for another bite of pheasant. “I couldn’t possibly. I’m stuffed.”
In this way, the fox ate and ate, bite by bite, until she had consumed two rabbits, most of the pheasant, and all of the good parts of the deer. Meanwhile, the wolf, who was left with scraps, went hungry.
An Iberian ribbed newt and a salamander sat together on a dusty road, enjoying the glow of the midday sun. A small green snake emerged from the nearby grass, looking quite content. As he slithered past, he gave a nod of his head. “Beautiful afternoon, isn’t it?” he asked cheerily.
In response, the Iberian ribbed newt arched his back and tucked his head into his chest—sharp, spiny ribs coated in poison burst through his skin. He thrashed his newly armored body about, the horrifying spines glittering. The snake gasped and nearly tied himself in knots trying to speedily slither away. The newt grinned, retracting his poisonous spines into his skin.
Several long moments of silence passed.
“Jesus, Phil,” the salamander finally uttered.
That evening, the salamander ended things. And from then on, the ribbed newt angrily warned anyone interested—and mostly those who were not—that they should learn a valuable lesson from him and stay far, far away from the salamander.
“She,” he would state, a little too loudly, “is totally crazy.”
A pig and a field mouse were enjoying a bright summer’s afternoon, strolling through the park.
“Look,” said the pig, gesturing toward a majestic eagle in the distance. “What a beautiful eagle!”
“Yes,” the field mouse concurred. “What a beautiful eagle, indeed.”
They continued on their way in agreeable silence.
You see, the field mouse had agreed with the pig because what the pig had said was true—she was an objectively beautiful eagle—and the field mouse, because she was an adult, understood that this didn’t mean that the pig was, like, into to the eagle and so didn’t make a whole goddam thing of it.
In the dying light of dusk, two mayflies sat together on a leaf, looking quite unhappy indeed.
“It’s just—” one mayfly began.
“It’s fine,” said the other.
“I just never thought of myself as—you know?” the first mayfly attempted.
“I said,” the second mayfly said, curtly, “that it’s fine.”
There they remained, perched together on the leaf in uncomfortable silence for several moments more.
“But I must remind you that I’m not exactly getting any younger,” the second mayfly finally continued. “I’m already sixteen hours old. I expect I have another seven hours left to live—eight, if I’m lucky. This was made known to you when first we met.”
She paused, sighing, remembering those sparkling early moments, so long ago. But she had been a mere twelve hours old then, and quite naïve. The first mayfly rubbed his hands together, as he was wont to do when feeling anxious.
“You know, it’s fine. It’s fine!” the second mayfly said briskly. “You were very clear from the beginning, and I should have—”
Her speech was interrupted when the other mayfly suddenly clasped her thorax tightly with his front legs. She gasped.
“I’m so sorry,” he whispered, squeezing tightly once more and releasing her. Then, with three swift flaps of his wings, he was gone, as quickly as he had arrived.
He got another mayfly pregnant, like, an hour later.
Evening fell soft upon the savannah, and the giraffe slept soundly, curled up on the ground. Here, as the giraffe slumbered, the gazelle was finally able to study him, and many truths became apparent to her at once. She chastised herself: How could she not have realized these things before?
Still gazing upon the giraffe, she laid a hoof on his back—gently, so as not to disturb him—and murmured, “Goodbye.” Then she galloped off into the night and was gone.
He had never been hot and interesting, at all, she had realized. It was just that he was really tall.


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--2020-02-06--Job Interview Questions They’re Dying to Ask You

Are your palms always this sweaty ?
Do you really not want a bottle of water , or do you have some outdated notion that accepting the bottle and getting much-needed hydration would make you look weak ?
Why is the résumé you just handed me so damp ?
I mean , I know why , but , still—why ?
Can you tell me a little bit about yourself ?
In the most concise but relevant way possible , please ?
I ’ m not Robert Caro , and I ’ m barely taking notes about your time at whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I guess I ’ ll have to Google it .
Did you read “ The Power Broker ” ?
Because I did .
Got that ?
Also , what are your salary requirements ?
If you ’ re so “ proficient ” in Microsoft Word , then why is this résumé formatted like a takeout menu from that restaurant which I know gave me food poisoning but I somehow can ’ t quit ?
I don ’ t know what they ’ re imitating crab with , but it sure is hit-or-miss .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can you tell that I ’ m thinking about food right now ?
Normally , in cartoons , it only takes a couple of seconds for the one character to realize that the other is seeing his head as a giant turkey leg , so I should really try to keep my mind on something else .
Oh , right .
You .
What ’ s your biggest weakness ?
And if it ’ s not being clammy and underqualified , woof .
Are you comfortable with there being an office dog ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I couldn ’ t think of anything else to ask .
Plus , I like dogs .
It would be so awesome if there were one running around this place—I bet it would bark at Brad all of the time .
God , I hate that guy .
Always telling me to get back to work .
Why would I want to do that ?
We don ’ t even have an office dog .
Why do you want to work for our company ?
I figure it ’ s probably just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pep talk about wasting the best days of my life working here when I could be reading “ Working , ” by my man Bobby C. , at some outdoor café while pondering which bureaucrat I ’ m going to biograph next .
If we do hire you , you ’ re not going to decorate your desk with those big-headed Funko dolls with the bulging eyes that always give me the feeling that they ’ re watching me and they don ’ t like what they see , right ?
Really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I demand to know right now .
It ’ s bad enough that I have Brad peering over my shoulder all day .
Do you have any questions for me ?
Sorry , buddy , but it ’ s time for the me show .
I ’ m about to blow your mind with riveting responses detailing how I started out at this company in an internship that I got because I lied about Morgan Stanley being my uncle and , even though no one believed me , the hiring manager felt bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gig .
I ’ m also going to let you in on exciting plans I have with regard to getting the company to pay for a standing desk that I ’ ll end up putting a chair in front of within a week .
Where do you see yourself in five minutes ?
Because that ’ s really not that far away—I ’ ll have to risk ordering lunch in , so that I don ’ t run into you on the street .
Would you consider wearing a pair of statement gloves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweat but they might make you more memorable—in a good way .
Well , a better way .
How can I get out of interviewing anyone else today ?
Don ’ t let me down , Krab Bowlz , please— Were my palms always this sweaty ?
Oops .

Are your palms always this sweaty?
Do you really not want a bottle of water, or do you have some outdated notion that accepting the bottle and getting much-needed hydration would make you look weak?
Why is the résumé you just handed me so damp? I mean, I know why, but, still—why?
Can you tell me a little bit about yourself? In the most concise but relevant way possible, please? I’m not Robert Caro, and I’m barely taking notes about your time at whatever kind of a company Alphabet is. I guess I’ll have to Google it.
Did you read “The Power Broker”? Because I did. Got that? Also, what are your salary requirements?
If you’re so “proficient” in Microsoft Word, then why is this résumé formatted like a takeout menu from that restaurant which I know gave me food poisoning but I somehow can’t quit? I don’t know what they’re imitating crab with, but it sure is hit-or-miss. Man, I’m hungry.
Can you tell that I’m thinking about food right now? Normally, in cartoons, it only takes a couple of seconds for the one character to realize that the other is seeing his head as a giant turkey leg, so I should really try to keep my mind on something else. Oh, right. You. What’s your biggest weakness? And if it’s not being clammy and underqualified, woof.
Are you comfortable with there being an office dog? We don’t have one, but I couldn’t think of anything else to ask. Plus, I like dogs. It would be so awesome if there were one running around this place—I bet it would bark at Brad all of the time. God, I hate that guy. Always telling me to get back to work. Why would I want to do that? We don’t even have an office dog.
Why do you want to work for our company? I figure it’s probably just the money, but I could use a pep talk about wasting the best days of my life working here when I could be reading “Working,” by my man Bobby C., at some outdoor café while pondering which bureaucrat I’m going to biograph next.
If we do hire you, you’re not going to decorate your desk with those big-headed Funko dolls with the bulging eyes that always give me the feeling that they’re watching me and they don’t like what they see, right? Really, any doll-related plans you have, I demand to know right now. It’s bad enough that I have Brad peering over my shoulder all day.
Do you have any questions for me? Sorry, buddy, but it’s time for the me show. I’m about to blow your mind with riveting responses detailing how I started out at this company in an internship that I got because I lied about Morgan Stanley being my uncle and, even though no one believed me, the hiring manager felt bad enough for me to give me the gig. I’m also going to let you in on exciting plans I have with regard to getting the company to pay for a standing desk that I’ll end up putting a chair in front of within a week.
Where do you see yourself in five minutes? Because that’s really not that far away—I’ll have to risk ordering lunch in, so that I don’t run into you on the street.
Would you consider wearing a pair of statement gloves? Not only could they absorb your sweat but they might make you more memorable—in a good way. Well, a better way.
How can I get out of interviewing anyone else today? Don’t let me down, Krab Bowlz, please—
Were my palms always this sweaty? Oops.


newyorker--2020-02-06--“The Last Conversation” and the Difficult Questions of Dementia

Caregivers of people living with dementia have a difficult choice to make .
As patients become increasingly divorced from reality , is it better to remind them of the facts that keep them tethered to the present ?
Or is it more merciful to let loved ones retreat into their memories , away from the details of their lives ?
This is the question that confronted Robert Kornberg after his father , Isidore , passed away .
In the latest installment of The New Yorker Documentary series , Robert examines his parents ’ partnership through the lens of its ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosed with Alzheimer ’ s a few years before Isidore died .
Isidore cared for her until his own health deteriorated , culminating in two heart attacks within three months .
He recovered from the first but not the second .
The film , which animates the couple ’ s life through countless archival photos and videos , crescendoes to the moment when Robert visits Sarah to deliver the news of Isidore ’ s death .
At first , Sarah misunderstands , thinking that his message pertains to her father , instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gently , but Sarah remains confused .
He tries again , enunciating his father ’ s full name .
She finally thinks she understands .
“ Oh , ” she replies , “ he was a very nice man.
” The off-kilterness of Sarah ’ s comment , and her inability to grasp the reality of widowhood , is a shock .
Robert , intent on conveying this crucial news—how could he allow her to remain ignorant ?
—continues to attempt it .
When the dam eventually breaks , she is blindsided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikingly , by the recognition of her own mental decline .
The rules governing truth-telling in medicine have never been fixed .
For much of the last century , a therapy called reality orientation , which aims to give dementia patients the facts of their existence in order to lessen their confusion , dominated the practice of care .
Over the past few decades , however , the field has trended away from honesty .
In a piece for this magazine published in 2018 , Larissa MacFarquhar reported on how nursing homes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have known in childhood , using historical details and artifacts .
These trappings , she writes , “ convey to people in later stages of the disease the impression that life is still as it once was.
” The tactic of indulging patients ’ forgetfulness and outdated knowledge , through scene-setting and also in conversation , is popular today in part because it can be so arduous to tell patients hard truths .
A person who is reminded , every time she asks for her husband , that he has died , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain .
One can see the humanity of saying , instead , that he ’ s gone out to the grocery store .
( A person with dementia will eventually forget she asked the question , after all . )
To some , such a white-lie approach is justified , compassionate deflection ; to others , it is simply lying , and therefore a dereliction of trust .
The natural question , of course , is whether some middle-ground approach is feasible .
MacFarquhar describes a treatment model by which caregivers impart neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , in one such schema , they allow patients to live largely in their memories , and they seek to validate emotions without directly contradicting real life .
Robert , in thinking about how to speak to his mother , adopts such a philosophy of compromise .
Soon after Sarah ’ s sudden moment of understanding the fact of her husband ’ s death , she again forgets .
Robert decides not to re-impress the fact of Isidore ’ s death upon Sarah , but nor does he make up an explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With a tremor in his voice , he resolves , “ Let her remember what she remembers.
” There is a coda .
A few days after Isidore ’ s funeral , Robert tells us , he noticed a light blinking on his parents ’ answering machine .
It was a conversation , inadvertently recorded , between his mother and father—their last before Isidore died .
At a moment when his mother ’ s memory of her own husband had faded or , by some metrics , evaporated , here was crystallized proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which you can hear in the video above , is not extraordinary ; in fact , it ’ s rather mundane .
In it , Isidore tells Sarah he loves her , and she says she loves him , too .
He asks her to have patience while he recovers from his heart attack , and says that they ’ ll be reunited soon .

Caregivers of people living with dementia have a difficult choice to make. As patients become increasingly divorced from reality, is it better to remind them of the facts that keep them tethered to the present? Or is it more merciful to let loved ones retreat into their memories, away from the details of their lives?
This is the question that confronted Robert Kornberg after his father, Isidore, passed away. In the latest installment of The New Yorker Documentary series, Robert examines his parents’ partnership through the lens of its ending. His mother, Sarah, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s a few years before Isidore died. Isidore cared for her until his own health deteriorated, culminating in two heart attacks within three months. He recovered from the first but not the second.
The film, which animates the couple’s life through a stream of archival photos and videos, crescendoes to the moment when Robert visits Sarah to deliver the news of Isidore’s death. At first, Sarah misunderstands, thinking that his message pertains to her father, instead of her husband. Robert repeats the news, gently, but Sarah remains confused. He tries again, enunciating his father’s full name. She finally thinks she understands. “Oh,” she replies, “he was a very nice man.”
The off-kilterness of Sarah’s comment, and her inability to grasp the reality of widowhood, is a shock. Robert, intent on conveying this crucial news—how could he allow her to remain ignorant?—continues to attempt it. When the dam eventually breaks, she is blindsided by her loss, but also, strikingly, by the recognition of her own mental decline.
The rules governing truth-telling in medicine have never been fixed. For much of the last century, a therapy called reality orientation, which aims to give dementia patients the facts of their existence in order to lessen their confusion, dominated the practice of care. Over the past few decades, however, the field has trended away from honesty. In a piece for this magazine published in 2018, Larissa MacFarquhar reported on how nursing homes are constructed to mimic environments that patients might have known in childhood, using historical details and artifacts. These trappings, she writes, “convey to people in later stages of the disease the impression that life is still as it once was.”
The tactic of indulging patients’ forgetfulness and outdated knowledge, through scene-setting and also in conversation, is popular today in part because it can be so arduous to tell patients hard truths. A person who is reminded, every time she asks for her husband, that he has died, for example, may experience repeated and undue pain. One can see the humanity of saying, instead, that he’s gone out to the grocery store. (A person with dementia will eventually forget she asked the question, after all.)
To some, such a white-lie approach is justified, compassionate deflection; to others, it is simply lying, and therefore a dereliction of trust. The natural question, of course, is whether some middle-ground approach is feasible. MacFarquhar describes a treatment model by which caregivers impart neither onerous information nor morally questionable misinformation. Instead, in one such schema, they allow patients to live largely in their memories, and they seek to validate emotions without directly contradicting real life.
Robert, in thinking about how to speak to his mother, adopts such a philosophy of compromise. Soon after Sarah’s sudden moment of understanding the fact of her husband’s death, she again forgets. Robert decides not to re-impress the fact of Isidore’s death upon Sarah, but nor does he make up an explanation for his father’s absence. With a tremor in his voice, he resolves, “Let her remember what she remembers.”
There is a coda. A few days after Isidore’s funeral, Robert tells us, he noticed a light blinking on his parents’ answering machine. It was a conversation, inadvertently recorded, between his mother and father—their last before Isidore died. At a moment when his mother’s memory of her own husband had faded or, by some metrics, evaporated, here was crystallized proof of their life together. The conversation, which you can hear in the video above, is not extraordinary; in fact, it’s rather mundane. In it, Isidore tells Sarah he loves her, and she says she loves him, too. He asks her to have patience while he recovers from his heart attack, and says that they’ll be reunited soon.


newyorker--2020-02-06--2020 Oscars Spotlight: The Best Director Nominees

It ’ s a common refrain during Oscar season : “ Did this film direct itself ?
” In other words , how can any film in the running for Best Picture not merit a nomination for its director ?
Alas , current Academy math demands it .
There are nine films nominated this year but only five directors , which means that four directors found themselves on the wrong side of the arithmetic .
Of those four , at least Greta Gerwig ( “ Little Women ” ) , Noah Baumbach ( “ Marriage Story ” ) and Taika @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are up for screenplay awards .
The last , James Mangold , also co-produced his movie , “ Ford v Ferrari , ” so a ( wildly improbable ) Best Picture win would get him on the stage .
Plus , he got to play with all those fast cars , which should be a reward unto itself .
But the missing name that really stings is Gerwig ’ s .
It ’ s simply unacceptable that , in nine decades , only one woman has won the directing award ( Kathryn Bigelow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and just five have been nominated—including Gerwig , for “ Lady Bird.
” By other metrics , the Academy ’ s directing honors have been expansive : over the past decade , the category has been dominated by foreign filmmakers , including three from Mexico ( Alfonso Cuarón , Alejandro G. Iñárritu , and Guillermo del Toro ) who have won a combined five times , as well as Michel Hazanavicius , from France , and Ang Lee , from Taiwan .
But the gender imbalance , at this point , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lay blame on an industry that doesn ’ t hire enough women to direct in the first place—and you still can .
But , this year , Gerwig was right there , not to mention that a record number of women directed movies in 2019 .
So , who are these guys we ’ re left with ?
Admittedly , an impressive bunch .
There ’ s one cinematic deity , Martin Scorsese , with a three-and-a-half-hour opus , and he ’ s not even considered to be in the top two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Parasite ” ) and Sam Mendes ( “ 1917 ” ) , whose films are also duking it out for Best Picture .
Quentin Tarantino ( “ Once Upon a Time .
.
.
in Hollywood ” ) always seems one degree too cool for the Academy , which tends to toss him screenplay awards out of bafflement .
And there ’ s Todd Phillips ( “ Joker ” ) , who concocted a comic-book movie that pays ostentatious tribute to Scorsese .
Scorsese , in turn , has spent the awards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle lines be drawn too neatly between old and new , Scorsese ’ s new film , “ The Irishman , ” is on Netflix , the industry ’ s deep-pocketed disrupter , after Paramount took a pass on its massive budget .
All five movies are unmistakable in atmosphere : this one gritty and blood-spattered , that one sunny and blood-spattered .
Come to think of it , they ’ re all blood-spattered .
You can see where “ Little Women ” ran into trouble .
The good-news story of this awards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After such inventive cult hits as “ The Host ” and “ Snowpiercer , ” the South Korean director has broken into the upper tier of the international film community , with a movie that is strange , challenging , gorgeous , and utterly of the moment .
“ Parasite ” is a stylistic breakthrough—the rare Academy-certified film more likely to jolt Hollywood out of its habits than to codify them .
And Bong has been a generous steward of the title of It Director .
When he weighed in on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues on both sides , while admitting , “ I can ’ t stand people wearing tight-fitting clothes.
” If he wins Best Director , it may be his third time on the stage in one night , should he also win Best International Feature Film and Best Original Screenplay .
Too much Bong ?
No one would complain .
The rare director who can glide between stage and screen , Mendes returns to the Oscar race twenty years after winning in this category for “ American Beauty.
” In the meantime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Ferryman , ” “ The Lehman Trilogy ” ) , period dramas ( “ Road to Perdition , ” “ Revolutionary Road ” ) , and blockbuster James Bond films ( “ Skyfall , ” “ Spectre ” ) .
With “ 1917 , ” a late and formidable arrival this awards season , he delivers a transfixing drama about the hell of war that is both personal ( it ’ s inspired by his grandfather ’ s First World War stories and is dedicated to him ) and technically ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Universal , a legacy Hollywood studio , at a time when Netflix is nipping away at the established order .
In other words , Mendes reflects the industry as it wants to see itself : capable of making money and art , reinventing the old without jettisoning its comforts .
Speaking of reinventing the old , credit Phillips with taking the comic-book movie , kicking it face first into a puddle of grime , and making us thank him for it .
“ Joker ” managed to win the Golden Lion award @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then rake in more than a billion dollars , so it ’ s clearly doing something right .
But what ?
Phillips seems to have bottled some of the bad energy in the world and festooned it with enough cinematic references to buy cred with anyone who ’ s seen “ Taxi Driver.
” All this from a director best known for the “ Hangover ” movies .
( Then again , last year ’ s Best Picture winner , “ Green Book , ” came from a Farrelly brother . )
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film , but Phillips ’ s lack of subtlety has only worked in his favor .
His next project : a bio-pic about Hulk Hogan .
Long before he was Uncle Marty , Scorsese was the blazing young talent who somehow made it through the nineteen-seventies—a decade he helped define onscreen—without a single Oscar nomination .
“ Mean Streets , ” “ Taxi Driver , ” “ Alice Doesn ’ t Live Here Anymore ” : Did they direct themselves ?
It wasn ’ t until “ Raging Bull ” ( 1980 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it took until “ The Departed ” ( 2006 ) for him to win .
Now , in his eighth decade , he ’ s come out with “ The Irishman , ” a late-career masterwork laced with an old man ’ s wistful self-doubt—yet bursting with energy and technological curiosity .
Toward the end , the main character , bound to a nursing home , is astounded that a young Latina nurse doesn ’ t recognize the name Jimmy Hoffa .
And yet Scorsese doesn ’ t candy the Mob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , destructive , and , like all things in this life , ephemeral .
Like Scorsese , Tarantino was a few steps ahead of the Academy when he broke onto the scene .
His breakout , “ Reservoir Dogs ” ( 1992 ) , went ignored .
“ Pulp Fiction ” ( 1994 ) won a screenplay award , but lost Best Picture and Best Director to “ Forrest Gump ” —not the box of chocolates one hopes to open .
Tarantino was nominated again for “ Inglourious Basterds ” ( 2009 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Django Unchained ” ( 2012 ) .
But , as one of the defining filmmakers of the nineties ( and of Gen X ) , he may have been too hip , too violent , too clever—too Tarantino—to win the Oscar imprimatur for directing .
The Academy is like an ocean liner , slow to change course .
But , with “ Once Upon a Time .
.
.
in Hollywood , ” Tarantino has given the industry something it can wholeheartedly embrace : a dollop of nostalgia for what it once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one of its painful episodes .
That , plus the film retains Tarantino ’ s idiosyncrasies , from extreme gore to foot worship .
Tarantino has hinted that his next movie will be his last—will he get his due before the crimson curtain comes down ?
Bottom line : Few would begrudge an Oscar for Scorsese or Tarantino , both of whom interrogated their own signature styles while reminding us what we love about them to begin with .
Most likely , though , Bong and Mendes will be in close contention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split .
A Best Picture win for “ 1917 ” could accompany a Best Director win for Bong , an echo of last year ’ s wins for “ Green Book ” and Cuarón ( an industry-friendly movie and a beloved international auteur ) .
It ’ s also possible that Mendes , whose film is unmistakably a directorial feat , will win in this category , while “ Parasite ” snatches Best Picture .
Whatever happens , let ’ s hope this is the last year of # DirectorsSoMale .

It’s a common refrain during Oscar season: Did this film direct itself? In other words, how can any film in the running for Best Picture not merit a nomination for its director? Alas, current Academy math demands it. There are nine films nominated this year but only five directors, which means that four directors found themselves on the wrong side of the arithmetic. Of those four, at least Greta Gerwig (“Little Women”), Noah Baumbach (“Marriage Story”), and Taika Waititi (“Jojo Rabbit”) are up for screenplay awards. The last, James Mangold, also co-produced his movie, “Ford v Ferrari,” so a (wildly improbable) Best Picture win would get him on the stage. Plus, he got to play with all those fast cars, which should be a reward unto itself.
But the missing name that really stings is Gerwig’s. It’s simply unacceptable that, in nine decades, only one woman has won the directing award (Kathryn Bigelow, for “The Hurt Locker”) and just five have been nominated—including Gerwig, for “Lady Bird.” By other metrics, the Academy’s directing honors have been expansive: over the past decade, the category has been dominated by foreign filmmakers, including three from Mexico (Alfonso Cuarón, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, and Guillermo del Toro), who have won a combined five times, as well as Michel Hazanavicius, from France, and Ang Lee, from Taiwan. But the gender imbalance, at this point, is a hair-on-fire travesty. Normally, you can lay blame on an industry that doesn’t hire enough women to direct in the first place—and you still can. But, this year, Gerwig was right there, not to mention that a record number of women directed movies in 2019.
So, who are these guys we’re left with? Admittedly, an impressive bunch. There’s one cinematic deity, Martin Scorsese, with a three-and-a-half-hour opus, and he’s not even considered to be in the top two. Those would be Bong Joon-ho (“Parasite”) and Sam Mendes (“1917”), whose films are also duking it out for Best Picture. Quentin Tarantino (“Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood”) always seems one degree too cool for the Academy, which tends to toss him screenplay awards out of bafflement. And there’s Todd Phillips (“Joker”), who concocted a comic-book movie that pays ostentatious tribute to Scorsese. Scorsese, in turn, has spent the awards season blasting comic-book movies. Lest the battle lines be drawn too neatly between old and new, Scorsese’s new film, “The Irishman,” is on Netflix, the industry’s deep-pocketed disrupter, after Paramount took a pass on its massive budget. All five movies are unmistakable in atmosphere: this one gritty and blood-spattered, that one sunny and blood-spattered. Come to think of it, they’re all blood-spattered. You can see where “Little Women” ran into trouble.
Bong Joon-ho, “Parasite”
The good-news story of this awards season has been the embrace of Bong. After such inventive cult hits as “The Host” and “Snowpiercer,” the South Korean director has broken into the upper tier of the international film community, with a movie that is strange, challenging, gorgeous, and utterly of the moment. “Parasite” is a stylistic breakthrough—the rare Academy-certified film more likely to jolt Hollywood out of its habits than to codify them. And Bong has been a generous steward of the title of It Director. When he weighed in on the superhero-movie debate, it was to praise colleagues on both sides, while admitting, “I can’t stand people wearing tight-fitting clothes.” If he wins Best Director, it may be his third time on the stage in one night, should he also win Best International Feature Film and Best Original Screenplay. Too much Bong? No one would complain.
Photograph by François Duhamel / Universal Pictures / Alamy
Sam Mendes, “1917”
The rare director who can glide between stage and screen, Mendes returns to the Oscar race twenty years after winning in this category for “American Beauty.” In the meantime, he has juggled smart theatrical spectacles (“The Ferryman,” “The Lehman Trilogy”), period dramas (“Road to Perdition,” “Revolutionary Road”), and blockbuster James Bond films (“Skyfall,” “Spectre”). With “1917,” a late and formidable arrival this awards season, he delivers a transfixing drama about the hell of war that is both personal (it’s inspired by his grandfather’s First World War stories and is dedicated to him) and technically ambitious. It’s also a hit for Universal, a legacy Hollywood studio, at a time when Netflix is nipping away at the established order. In other words, Mendes reflects the industry as it wants to see itself: capable of making money and art, reinventing the old without jettisoning its comforts.
Todd Phillips, “Joker”
Speaking of reinventing the old, credit Phillips with taking the comic-book movie, kicking it face first into a puddle of grime, and making us thank him for it. “Joker” managed to win the Golden Lion award at the Venice International Film Festival and then rake in more than a billion dollars, so it’s clearly doing something right. But what? Phillips seems to have bottled some of the bad energy in the world and festooned it with enough cinematic references to buy cred with anyone who’s seen “Taxi Driver.” All this from a director best known for the “Hangover” movies. (Then again, last year’s Best Picture winner, “Green Book,” came from a Farrelly brother.) It’s a brazen, oppressively nasty film, but Phillips’s lack of subtlety has only worked in his favor. His next project: a bio-pic about Hulk Hogan.
Martin Scorsese, “The Irishman”
Long before he was Uncle Marty, Scorsese was the blazing young talent who somehow made it through the nineteen-seventies—a decade he helped define onscreen—without a single Oscar nomination. “Mean Streets,” “Taxi Driver,” “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”: Did they direct themselves? It wasn’t until “Raging Bull” (1980) that Scorsese was nominated for Best Director, and it took until “The Departed” (2006) for him to win. Now, in his eighth decade, he’s come out with “The Irishman,” a late-career masterwork laced with an old man’s wistful self-doubt—yet bursting with energy and technological curiosity. Toward the end, the main character, bound to a nursing home, is astounded that a young Latina nurse doesn’t recognize the name Jimmy Hoffa. And yet Scorsese doesn’t candy the Mob life with nostalgia: it was ugly, destructive, and, like all things in this life, ephemeral.
Photograph from Columbia Pictures / Alamy
Quentin Tarantino, “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood”
Like Scorsese, Tarantino was a few steps ahead of the Academy when he broke onto the scene. His breakout, “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), went ignored. “Pulp Fiction” (1994) won a screenplay award, but lost Best Picture and Best Director to “Forrest Gump”—not the box of chocolates one hopes to open. Tarantino was nominated again for “Inglourious Basterds” (2009) and won a second screenplay award for “Django Unchained” (2012). But, as one of the defining filmmakers of the nineties (and of Gen X), he may have been too hip, too violent, too clever—too Tarantino—to win the Oscar imprimatur for directing. The Academy is like an ocean liner, slow to change course. But, with “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood,” Tarantino has given the industry something it can wholeheartedly embrace: a dollop of nostalgia for what it once was, with a counterfactual escape hatch from one of its painful episodes. That, plus the film retains Tarantino’s idiosyncrasies, from extreme gore to foot worship. Tarantino has hinted that his next movie will be his last—will he get his due before the crimson curtain comes down?
Bottom line: Few would begrudge an Oscar for Scorsese or Tarantino, both of whom interrogated their own signature styles while reminding us what we love about them to begin with. Most likely, though, Bong and Mendes will be in close contention, with the possibility of a director-picture split. A Best Picture win for “1917” could accompany a Best Director win for Bong, an echo of last year’s wins for “Green Book” and Cuarón (an industry-friendly movie and a beloved international auteur). It’s also possible that Mendes, whose film is unmistakably a directorial feat, will win in this category, while “Parasite” snatches Best Picture. Whatever happens, let’s hope this is the last year of #DirectorsSoMale.
Read All of Our 2020 Oscar Spotlights:
The Academy is still navigating its place in Hollywood’s perennial tug-of-war between art and commerce.
It’s the rare year in which the men’s races feel juicier than the women’s.
Prognosticators will tell you that Renée Zellweger has the best-actress category in the bag, but there is always the chance of an upset.
Hollywood is notorious for its disregard of the art of screenwriting, so it’s some consolation that writing gets twice as many Oscars categories as directing does.


newyorker--2020-02-06--Michael Lind on Populism, Racism, and Restoring Democracy

In his new book , “ The New Class War : Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite , ” the political scientist Michael Lind declares that the “ greatest threat to Western democracy is the gradual decay of North America and Europe under well-educated , well-mannered , and well-funded centrist neoliberal politicians.
” He contends that the educated managerial caste paved the way for the rise of “ demagogic populism ” around the world , and blames “ technocratic neoliberalism ” for the destruction of the American middle class .
At the same time , Lind thinks attacks on President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the élites he scorns are engaged in a “ Brown Scare ” of trying to make Americans feel endangered by white Trump voters .
He calls the belief that Trump was signalling his approval for white nationalism after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville a “ conspiracy theory ” and bemoans “ asymmetrical multiculturalism , ” under which the “ appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with élite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures.
” Lind , a professor at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Texas and a co-founder of the New America Foundation , has long been a proponent of a reborn “ American nationalism , ” which would see the United States reduce its footprint abroad and embrace “ democratic pluralism ” at home .
That solution would entail an increased role for organized labor in setting policy , and a renewed focus on organizations and communities—houses of worship , trade unions , “ mass-membership political parties ” —that he believes have been hollowed out .
I recently spoke by phone with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed the relationship between populism and oligarchy , whether élites look down on Trump voters , and why Lind believes the President was given a raw deal in the media ’ s coverage of Charlottesville .
What , in your view , has gone wrong over the past several decades with how the American economy functions ?
Part of it is this long-term technological change that was going to happen in any advanced industrial society as its economy evolved and progressed .
The plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods and services becoming cheaper and cheaper in this highly mechanized and automated sector .
But the other thing is power .
It ’ s power politics .
Workers have very little bargaining power , and mainly that is because of the long-term decline of collective bargaining , which is obviously strongest in some of the Northern European countries and weakest in the English-speaking countries .
And that ’ s not simply a case of long-term gradual decline .
Part of it is compositional , where these sectors where they ’ re creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin with .
But also , in the case of the United States , it was murder—that is , there was this employer backlash , this counter-offensive against unionization after World War Two .
So , part of it is a long-term natural evolution of the economy .
But there also was this class war , to coin a phrase , against the bargaining power of labor .
What are the two sides of this “ class war , ” and who are the “ managerial elite ” ?
I built on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s argument in “ The Managerial Revolution , ” in 1941 , his worldwide best-seller .
He was building on the argument of Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means , in “ The Modern Corporation and Private Property , ” which was in 1932 .
Already , by the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties , you had these giant industrial corporations , which no owner-operator could possibly supervise .
So you had this whole class of private-sector bureaucrats , of executives .
And , as ownership became much more fractionated among shareholders , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations , shareholders , may not even know that the mutual fund that their 401 ( k ) s are invested in is constantly buying and selling these stocks .
And so Berle and Means argued that the classic bourgeois capitalists , the owner-operator , had been replaced by this new stratum of corporate executives , but also engineers and experts and technicians .
John Kenneth Galbraith , acknowledging his debt to Burnham , called this the “ techno-structure ” in the nineteen-sixties .
Now , Burnham ’ s definition , which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very , very broad .
It was not simply private-sector corporate executives .
It was government civil servants , it was military officers .
He thought military and intelligence officers become increasingly powerful in the élite in the future .
And then , below that , you had the classic proletariat .
And what is that class as it exists today ?
It ’ s sort of a rough cut .
Obviously , there are all kinds of subcategories .
If you look at people with a B.A.
, it ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. and in Western Europe .
Within that educated élite are people with graduate and professional degrees—it ’ s about ten per cent of the population .
And that ten per cent owns about half of the wealth .
The rest of it is divided between the one per cent and the bottom ninety per cent .
Both of my parents were college educated , and the way I define class is that it ’ s the class you were born into ; it ’ s not the money you make .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a kind of a status .
You write in the book about “ democratic pluralism , ” which you view as a solution to this status quo , that reconstructing it “ to permit cross-class power sharing is a challenge as difficult as it is urgent.
” The alternative , in your view , is grim : “ a future of gated communities and mobs led by demagogues at their gates.
” How would the status quo lead to demagogues ?
Trump is the first demagogue to be elected President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which demagogues arise , the three examples that I use in the book are the American South between the Civil War and the civil-rights era , Latin America , and some of the big cities in the Northeast , like the Boston mayor James Michael Curley in the first half of the twentieth century .
Where that arises , you get a very kind of incestuous , nepotistic power structure .
It was the Southern bourbon gentry ruling class , for example , in the pre-civil-rights , post–Civil War spell .
African-Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the poor whites and the white working class in the South were frozen out of institutions , out of power , and so on .
Where you get this , a population is not incorporated into the institutions , whether they are local political parties , religious congregations , or trade unions .
You get this kind of anomic mass , and either they ignore politics or , when they ’ re very frustrated and angry , they rally behind charismatic , outsider populists .
And Trump is an example .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is completely mistaken , because they were backed by the establishment—by the military and the corporate élites , and the armed forces , and even the professoriate—to block the working-class Communists and Socialists .
President Trump recently travelled to Davos and appeared to get a pretty warm reception from the financial élites gathered there .
If someone knew nothing about politics but read your book , I think he or she might find this a little bit confusing , because you frequently write about élites and populists being at loggerheads .
Is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Populists almost always fail , these outsiders .
Most of the time , they are co-opted by the existing establishment .
Sometimes they continue to fight the establishment , but they create their own separate personal-patronage rings .
My interpretation of Trump is he ’ s been co-opted [ by the establishment ] , beginning in 2017 .
He came in and he was an outsider .
He was very weak .
He was , to my mind , kind of like Jesse Ventura , his friend with whom he tried to hijack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2000 .
You ’ re nominally the head of a party of which you ’ re not really even a member .
He wasn ’ t even a Republican , as far as anybody can tell .
They ’ re hostile to you .
The other party ’ s hostile to you .
So either you triangulate between the two parties or you just kind of say , O.K.
, I ’ m the head of this one party , and I will be more or less conventional .

In his new book, “The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite,” the political scientist Michael Lind declares that the “greatest threat to Western democracy is the gradual decay of North America and Europe under well-educated, well-mannered, and well-funded centrist neoliberal politicians.” He contends that the educated managerial caste paved the way for the rise of “demagogic populism” around the world, and blames “technocratic neoliberalism” for the destruction of the American middle class.
At the same time, Lind thinks attacks on President Trump have grown out of proportion and that the élites he scorns are engaged in a “Brown Scare” of trying to make Americans feel endangered by white Trump voters. He calls the belief that Trump was signalling his approval for white nationalism after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville a “conspiracy theory” and bemoans “asymmetrical multiculturalism,” under which the “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with élite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures.”
Lind, a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and a co-founder of the New America Foundation, has long been a proponent of a reborn “American nationalism,” which would see the United States reduce its footprint abroad and embrace “democratic pluralism” at home. That solution would entail an increased role for organized labor in setting policy, and a renewed focus on organizations and communities—houses of worship, trade unions, “mass-membership political parties”—that he believes have been hollowed out.
I recently spoke by phone with Lind. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the relationship between populism and oligarchy, whether élites look down on Trump voters, and why Lind believes the President was given a raw deal in the media’s coverage of Charlottesville.
What, in your view, has gone wrong over the past several decades with how the American economy functions?
Part of it is this long-term technological change that was going to happen in any advanced industrial society as its economy evolved and progressed. The plus side of this is all of the goods and services becoming cheaper and cheaper in this highly mechanized and automated sector.
But the other thing is power. It’s power politics. Workers have very little bargaining power, and mainly that is because of the long-term decline of collective bargaining, which is obviously strongest in some of the Northern European countries and weakest in the English-speaking countries. And that’s not simply a case of long-term gradual decline. Part of it is compositional, where these sectors where they’re creating all the jobs were never unionized to begin with. But also, in the case of the United States, it was murder—that is, there was this employer backlash, this counter-offensive against unionization after World War Two.
So, part of it is a long-term natural evolution of the economy. But there also was this class war, to coin a phrase, against the bargaining power of labor.
What are the two sides of this “class war,” and who are the “managerial elite”?
I built on the ex-Trotskyist and future conservative editor James Burnham’s argument in “The Managerial Revolution,” in 1941, his worldwide best-seller. He was building on the argument of Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, in “The Modern Corporation and Private Property,” which was in 1932. Already, by the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties, you had these giant industrial corporations, which no owner-operator could possibly supervise. So you had this whole class of private-sector bureaucrats, of executives. And, as ownership became much more fractionated among shareholders, to the extent that now the supposed owners of corporations, shareholders, may not even know that the mutual fund that their 401(k)s are invested in is constantly buying and selling these stocks.
And so Berle and Means argued that the classic bourgeois capitalists, the owner-operator, had been replaced by this new stratum of corporate executives, but also engineers and experts and technicians. John Kenneth Galbraith, acknowledging his debt to Burnham, called this the “techno-structure” in the nineteen-sixties. Now, Burnham’s definition, which I follow, of the managerial élite was very, very broad. It was not simply private-sector corporate executives. It was government civil servants, it was military officers. He thought military and intelligence officers become increasingly powerful in the élite in the future. And then, below that, you had the classic proletariat.
And what is that class as it exists today?
It’s sort of a rough cut. Obviously, there are all kinds of subcategories. If you look at people with a B.A., it’s about a third of the population in the U.S. and in Western Europe. Within that educated élite are people with graduate and professional degrees—it’s about ten per cent of the population. And that ten per cent owns about half of the wealth. The rest of it is divided between the one per cent and the bottom ninety per cent. Both of my parents were college educated, and the way I define class is that it’s the class you were born into; it’s not the money you make. So it’s not simply income. It’s a kind of a status.
You write in the book about “democratic pluralism,” which you view as a solution to this status quo, that reconstructing it “to permit cross-class power sharing is a challenge as difficult as it is urgent.” The alternative, in your view, is grim: “a future of gated communities and mobs led by demagogues at their gates.” How would the status quo lead to demagogues?
Trump is the first demagogue to be elected President. If you look at the conditions in which demagogues arise, the three examples that I use in the book are the American South between the Civil War and the civil-rights era, Latin America, and some of the big cities in the Northeast, like the Boston mayor James Michael Curley in the first half of the twentieth century.
Where that arises, you get a very kind of incestuous, nepotistic power structure. It was the Southern bourbon gentry ruling class, for example, in the pre-civil-rights, post–Civil War spell. African-Americans in the South were completely disenfranchised, but the poor whites and the white working class in the South were frozen out of institutions, out of power, and so on.
Where you get this, a population is not incorporated into the institutions, whether they are local political parties, religious congregations, or trade unions. You get this kind of anomic mass, and either they ignore politics or, when they’re very frustrated and angry, they rally behind charismatic, outsider populists. And Trump is an example. I think the whole Hitler-and-Mussolini [comparison] is completely mistaken, because they were backed by the establishment—by the military and the corporate élites, and the armed forces, and even the professoriate—to block the working-class Communists and Socialists.


newyorker--2020-02-06--The Wrenching Truth About Mitt Romney’s Impeachment-Trial Vote Is That It Doesn’t Matter

On Monday afternoon , Representative Adam Schiff closed the House managers ’ case in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump , the third such proceeding in American history , with a simple question for the Republican senators arrayed in front of him .
“ Is there one among you , ” he beseeched them , “ who will say , ‘ Enough ’ ?
” On Wednesday afternoon , Mitt Romney gave him the answer .
“ Yes , ” Romney said .
“ The President is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.
” In our increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to a surprise as Washington is still capable of .
For the next few minutes , the junior senator from Utah invoked the faith that impelled him to take his oath of “ impartial justice ” seriously , and then crisply debunked Trump ’ s legal defense for the charge of pressuring a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming U.S. election—a charge that , after all , had as its main evidence the record of a phone call released by the President himself .
“ Were I to ignore the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me , for the sake of a partisan end , it would , I fear , expose my character to history ’ s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience , ” he said .
There were only four senators present in the chamber to hear Romney reveal his choice .
One of them , the Democrat Brian Schatz , of Hawaii , walked off the Senate floor in tears when it was over .
“ He literally restored my faith in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just eight years and a pre-Trump lifetime ago , Mitt Romney was the Republican Party ’ s nominee for President .
When the trial came to its inevitable end , a couple of hours after Romney ’ s speech , with a partisan acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate , however , Romney became the first senator in American history to vote to convict and remove a President of his own Party .
It was , he said , “ the most difficult decision ” he had ever made .
For months , Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their number would break ranks in either the House or the Senate .
They were wrong .
There would be just this one .
Mitt Romney had a chance to rewrite his own place in history .
He seized it .
That is sure to infuriate Trump , whose son began demanding Romney ’ s expulsion from the Senate Republican Conference even before the senator had actually cast his vote .
Decades from now , Romney may be as revered as Margaret Chase Smith , who is remembered today for being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge Joseph McCarthy at the height of his powers .
Romney seemed acutely conscious of this in his remarks .
He spoke of telling his children and grandchildren that he did his duty and of the “ future generations of Americans ” who will evaluate him .
“ They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong , grievously wrong .
We are all footnotes , at best , in the annals of history , but , in the most powerful nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty and justice , that distinction is enough for any citizen , ” he said .
Romney will have to be content with his footnote , because the wrenching truth is that his unexpected act of conscience did not matter to the final , preordained outcome any more than that of Joe Manchin , the West Virginia Democrat who remained the only undeclared senator in either party just before the Senate gathered , at 4 P.M. , for the final ritual of acquitting Trump .
( Like every other Democrat , Manchin ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s piercing words , though they will be justly celebrated in the harsh judgment that history will inevitably render on Trump , are essentially irrelevant to the larger significance of the day .
It was not Romney ’ s vision of constitutional justice that prevailed in the U.S. Senate but Trump ’ s .
Party over country won , as the President knew that it would .
From here on , there can be no more illusions .
In the course of the two-week Senate trial , Trump asked Republican members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ perfect ” and literally unimpeachable .
They chose to agree with him , or , even if they didn ’ t , they chose to go along with letting him off the hook .
In his closing argument , the White House counsel Pat Cipollone did not make it easy for the senators .
“ The President has done nothing wrong , ” he said , as he rested his case .
On Wednesday , fifty-two of the fifty-three Republican members of the Senate , no matter what contorted rationales they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that proposition .
Manchin had tried to interest the Republicans in a censure motion that would at least register some disapproval .
He had no takers .
So what are we left with ?
Mitt Romney , alone with his principles , and Trump , angry , vengeful , and unconstrained by any constitutional threat .
Until the voters render their verdict , in November , Trump will be the President he has always wanted to be : inescapable , all-powerful , and completely unaccountable .
Of course , I am glad the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be ?
Ever since 10 A.M. on September 25th , when Trump released the White House record of his call with the Ukrainian President , Volodymyr Zelensky , demanding that he “ do us a favor though ” and investigate Joe Biden , we were headed to this moment .
It has been a long march to something this inevitable .
The broad outlines of what Trump did were quickly evident .
So , too , was the fact that Republicans were largely willing to excuse it .
The public knew it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the hook in Senate offices during the impeachment trial ; the streets outside the Capitol were not clogged with protesters .
“ It ’ s like watching a game that you ’ ve recorded and intend to watch but then someone blurts out who won and what the score was , and you decide not to go back and just watch the replay , ” Chris Coons , a Democratic senator from Delaware , reflected to me the other day .
The trial was more fake than even the disinterested public could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate ’ s history not to call a single witness .
Its end is a relief .
At least we will not have to hear any more bogus speeches about the Founding Fathers or pabulum about the sanctity of the process .
We are spared the faux horror of Alaska ’ s Lisa Murkowski , who chided Congress for its abdication of responsibility but didn ’ t want to hear the former national-security adviser John Bolton testify under oath about grave wrongdoing by the President .
We are saved from the absurd rationalizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio ’ s Rob Portman , who reproved the President for his “ wrong ” and “ inappropriate ” conduct but insisted that Trump had learned his lessons and should not face any consequences .
This , along with Romney ’ s last-minute declaration exposing their hollow pretense , is what passed for suspense in the trial .
But it was all misleading , a distraction , as pointless as their votes turned out to be .
Trump ’ s Washington is not their Washington of embarrassed hair-splitting , of awkward rationalizations made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
His is the Washington of Rand Paul , who went to the Senate floor on Tuesday to please Trump by reading aloud the name of the alleged intelligence-community whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment investigation .
It is the Washington of Trump haters turned sycophants , like Lindsey Graham , and of partisan vengeance from the Senate-committee chairmen who announced , as soon as the trial ended , that they had issued requests for information about Biden ’ s son and his dealings in Ukraine .

On Monday afternoon, Representative Adam Schiff closed the House managers’ case in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, the third such proceeding in American history, with a simple question for the Republican senators arrayed in front of him. “Is there one among you,” he beseeched them, “who will say, ‘Enough’?” On Wednesday afternoon, Mitt Romney gave him the answer. “Yes,” Romney said. “The President is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”
In our increasingly predictable partisan world, this was as close to a surprise as Washington is still capable of. For the next few minutes, the junior senator from Utah invoked the faith that impelled him to take his oath of “impartial justice” seriously, and then crisply debunked Trump’s legal defense for the charge of pressuring a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming U.S. election—a charge that, after all, had as its main evidence the record of a phone call released by the President himself. “Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me, for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience,” he said. There were only four senators present in the chamber to hear Romney reveal his choice. One of them, the Democrat Brian Schatz, of Hawaii, walked off the Senate floor in tears when it was over. “He literally restored my faith in the institution,” Schatz told reporters.
Just eight years and a pre-Trump lifetime ago, Mitt Romney was the Republican Party’s nominee for President. When the trial came to its inevitable end, a couple of hours after Romney’s speech, with a partisan acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate, however, Romney became the first senator in American history to vote to convict and remove a President of his own Party. It was, he said, “the most difficult decision” he had ever made. For months, Republicans had projected quiet confidence that not one of their number would break ranks in either the House or the Senate. They were wrong. There would be just this one.
Mitt Romney had a chance to rewrite his own place in history. He seized it. That is sure to infuriate Trump, whose son began demanding Romney’s expulsion from the Senate Republican Conference even before the senator had actually cast his vote. Decades from now, Romney may be as revered as Margaret Chase Smith, who is remembered today for being the first lonely voice in the Republican Party to challenge Joseph McCarthy at the height of his powers. Romney seemed acutely conscious of this in his remarks. He spoke of telling his children and grandchildren that he did his duty and of the “future generations of Americans” who will evaluate him. “They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong. We are all footnotes, at best, in the annals of history, but, in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen,” he said.
Romney will have to be content with his footnote, because the wrenching truth is that his unexpected act of conscience did not matter to the final, preordained outcome any more than that of Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who remained the only undeclared senator in either party just before the Senate gathered, at 4 P.M., for the final ritual of acquitting Trump. (Like every other Democrat, Manchin ultimately voted to convict.) Even Romney’s piercing words, though they will be justly celebrated in the harsh judgment that history will inevitably render on Trump, are essentially irrelevant to the larger significance of the day. It was not Romney’s vision of constitutional justice that prevailed in the U.S. Senate but Trump’s. Party over country won, as the President knew that it would. From here on, there can be no more illusions.
In the course of the two-week Senate trial, Trump asked Republican members of Congress to believe that what he did was “perfect” and literally unimpeachable. They chose to agree with him, or, even if they didn’t, they chose to go along with letting him off the hook. In his closing argument, the White House counsel Pat Cipollone did not make it easy for the senators. “The President has done nothing wrong,” he said, as he rested his case. On Wednesday, fifty-two of the fifty-three Republican members of the Senate, no matter what contorted rationales they offered the public, voted to accept that proposition. Manchin had tried to interest the Republicans in a censure motion that would at least register some disapproval. He had no takers.
So what are we left with? Mitt Romney, alone with his principles, and Trump, angry, vengeful, and unconstrained by any constitutional threat. Until the voters render their verdict, in November, Trump will be the President he has always wanted to be: inescapable, all-powerful, and completely unaccountable.
Of course, I am glad the trial is over. How could one not be? Ever since 10 A.M. on September 25th, when Trump released the White House record of his call with the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding that he “do us a favor though” and investigate Joe Biden, we were headed to this moment. It has been a long march to something this inevitable. The broad outlines of what Trump did were quickly evident. So, too, was the fact that Republicans were largely willing to excuse it. The public knew it, too. Phones were not ringing off the hook in Senate offices during the impeachment trial; the streets outside the Capitol were not clogged with protesters. “It’s like watching a game that you’ve recorded and intend to watch but then someone blurts out who won and what the score was, and you decide not to go back and just watch the replay,” Chris Coons, a Democratic senator from Delaware, reflected to me the other day.
The trial was more fake than even the disinterested public could have anticipated—the first impeachment trial in the Senate’s history not to call a single witness. Its end is a relief. At least we will not have to hear any more bogus speeches about the Founding Fathers or pabulum about the sanctity of the process. We are spared the faux horror of Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who chided Congress for its abdication of responsibility but didn’t want to hear the former national-security adviser John Bolton testify under oath about grave wrongdoing by the President. We are saved from the absurd rationalizations of Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Rob Portman, who reproved the President for his “wrong” and “inappropriate” conduct but insisted that Trump had learned his lessons and should not face any consequences. This, along with Romney’s last-minute declaration exposing their hollow pretense, is what passed for suspense in the trial.
But it was all misleading, a distraction, as pointless as their votes turned out to be. Trump’s Washington is not their Washington of embarrassed hair-splitting, of awkward rationalizations made by the defeated relics of the old order. His is the Washington of Rand Paul, who went to the Senate floor on Tuesday to please Trump by reading aloud the name of the alleged intelligence-community whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment investigation. It is the Washington of Trump haters turned sycophants, like Lindsey Graham, and of partisan vengeance from the Senate-committee chairmen who announced, as soon as the trial ended, that they had issued requests for information about Biden’s son and his dealings in Ukraine.
No wonder Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night was such a painful spectacle, in which the nation’s divisions were indelibly exposed by the raw visual of blindly cheering Republicans and outraged, slumping Democrats. Republicans in this strange new era of demagogic takeover applaud policies they don’t agree with because they come from their leader. Democrats cannot even bear the sight of the President. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, who made the consequential decision to pursue Trump’s impeachment knowing that it would end up this way, pronounced herself so disgusted by Trump’s “manifesto of mistruths” that she carefully and deliberately ripped up her copy when he finished speaking—a performative act of partisan disgust that predictably left her supporters cheering and Trump himself obsessively complaining.
The scene in the Senate chamber on Wednesday afternoon was a quieter, more polite version of this—two parties, no longer on speaking terms, and Mitt Romney, a party of one. The G.O.P. gave Donald Trump his overwhelming acquittal. But, of course, it wasn’t enough for the President. Within a couple of hours of the Senate’s vote, there he was hate-tweeting an attack ad at Romney. Was there anyone anywhere who was surprised?