newyorker--2020-02-11--Grief and Wariness at a Vigil for Li Wenliang, the Doctor Who Tried to Warn China About the Coronavi

Grief and Wariness at a Vigil for Li Wenliang, the Doctor Who Tried to Warn China About the Coronavirus

Last week , Li Wenliang , a doctor in Wuhan , died of complications from coronavirus , triggering an eruption of grief and anger on the Chinese Internet .
Li had been among the first to spread word online about the emerging coronavirus , and was disciplined at work and by local police for promoting “ untrue speech.
” By the time of Li ’ s death , Wuhan had been on lockdown for two weeks , and the official count of confirmed cases of coronavirus there was more than eleven thousand .
But residents of the city of eleven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Li in solitude .
Some cried out his name from high-rise apartments , creating a hymn of sorrow ; some drove their sedans and S.U.V.s slowly through empty streets , with the hazard lights on .
In New York City , Mei Qiqi , a graduate student in international educational development at Columbia , cried for half an hour straight upon seeing the news on Thursday , and immediately changed her WeChat avatar to a black ribbon .
Then she decided to hold a memorial service to honor Li in Central Park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she later said .
“ It lends people voices and unity .
It makes us get out of the house and huddle together.
” The invitation to the vigil , featuring a sketch of Li wearing glasses and a face mask , circulated in chat groups and social-media posts .
It was the first of a series of such services outside China , and there were others in L.A. , San Francisco , Boston , Toronto , Melbourne , and Berlin .
Around 12:30 P.M. on Sunday , Mei and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triangular ground in front of the closed Sheep Meadow , facing the midtown skyline .
The sky was bleak and birds were crying in the distance .
A man slashed open a few Amazon boxes , revealing two hundred and fifty individually packaged , multi-colored whistles .
“ It ’ s more hygienic this way , ” Mei said .
The volunteers set up a white banner on a fence .
“ What does it say ?
” a passerby asked his companion .
She whispered the answer to him , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfamiliar text out loud : “ Deep mourning Dr. Li Wenliang ?
” On the ground , the mourners arranged white and yellow chrysanthemums and started to line up ; on the fence , they taped messages submitted by people who couldn ’ t make it to the event .
“ Goodbye Dr. Li , ” one read .
“ In the coming days , I will speak every bit of truth in respect of you.
” A data scientist , wearing a light-blue surgical mask , watched the scene .
She grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has family , and now lives in Westchester .
When she first saw the invitation to the vigil on WeChat , she told me , she hesitated .
Public assemblies are banned in China , and many overseas Chinese still fear ramifications from attending events like this .
But she decided to come anyway .
“ I ’ m just an ordinary person sending off another ordinary person , ” she said .
She lamented how Chinese authorities had failed to take good care of Li .
“ Now he has died .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the better.
” A young woman in a navy jacket , carrying a bouquet of white lilies , came by .
She was a student at Princeton and had learned of the service in her class chat group .
“ Few people dared to comment , fearing a bad impact on their future , ” she said .
“ After all , most of us plan to return to China.
” She is from Zhejiang Province , where more than a thousand cases are confirmed .
She was worried about her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t so good last year , and then we couldn ’ t open during Chinese New Year.
” Princeton originally asked all returning students who had spent winter break in China to self-quarantine ; those plans were scrapped , but a handful of students still chose to isolate themselves .
The Princeton student slipped a yellow whistle over her head .
“ Dr .
Li was a brave man with a clear conscience , ” she said .
She asked if The New Yorker publishes on WeChat , and was glad that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one will see that I came here , ” she said .
People kept streaming in , and by just after 1 P.M. , a crowd of about two hundred had gathered .
Most attendees were wearing black .
Around half of them wore face masks , or pulled up their scarves above their noses ; elsewhere in Manhattan , few people wore masks .
A man in a blue windbreaker jogged by and looked intrigued .
Asked if he knew of Dr. Li , he said , “ Of course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons.
” The crowd formed a half-moon , facing downtown , as Mei took the stage .
“ In the past two days , preparing for this event , I came to see the most skittish side of myself , ” she told her audience .
“ I feared something bad would happen at this event , and it would be smeared ; I feared all the media that will come , and that one comment from someone would overshadow our intention to mourn and to remember .
What I feared the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life—what if I said something wrong ?
” To overcome her fears , she said , she thought of Li .
“ After being admonished by the police , Dr. Li shared the letter online and accepted interviews .
He was not looking to say the most correct thing .
He said what he wanted to say.
” The crowd started to blow their whistles , sounding like a group of wolves howling at the moon .
A few attendees shared songs and poems they composed for Li .
A man in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fresh napkins , fastened by a rubber band between speakers .
A slight woman took the stage .
“ It took me six hours to get here from out of state , ” she said .
“ I ’ m excited and disoriented .
Since the outbreak , I ’ ve been missing and worried for my family and friends in China , because I have no reliable source of information to decide what ’ s going on there , and how bad it is.
” She choked up .
“ From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw that individuals could be criminalized for sharing real news .
This frightens us , and makes all of us worry about access to the truth.
” “ In America , freedom of speech is a very safe topic , ” a tall , buff young man from Inner Mongolia , his hair in a bun , said .
“ But , as a student from China , to show my face here in front of cameras , I ’ m pretty scared .
.
.
.
We are mostly safe here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please , think long and hard .
We can ’ t let Dr. Li ’ s tragedy happen again.
” The crowd applauded .
A man in a black baseball cap , wearing a gray mask and sunglasses , came up .
“ Dr .
Li said that a healthy society shouldn ’ t have only one voice .
I want to say , there shouldn ’ t be just one voice over here , either.
” The crowd was quiet .
“ Does Dr. Li ’ s death have anything to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Go back to Weibo , ” a man yelled .
On Weibo , like other Chinese platforms , voices critical of the government are silenced , and pro-government commentators had tried to divorce Li ’ s death from his call for freedom of speech .

Last week, Li Wenliang, a doctor in Wuhan, died of complications from coronavirus, triggering an eruption of grief and anger on the Chinese Internet. Li had been among the first to spread word online about the emerging coronavirus, and was disciplined at work and by local police for promoting “untrue speech.” By the time of Li’s death, Wuhan had been on lockdown for two weeks, and the official count of confirmed cases of coronavirus there was more than eleven thousand. But residents of the city of eleven million found ways to mourn the loss of Li in solitude. Some cried out his name from high-rise apartments, creating a hymn of sorrow; some drove their sedans and S.U.V.s slowly through empty streets, with the hazard lights on.
In New York City, Mei Qiqi, a graduate student in international educational development at Columbia, cried for half an hour straight upon seeing the news on Thursday, and immediately changed her WeChat avatar to a black ribbon. Then she decided to hold a memorial service to honor Li in Central Park. “Mourning itself is an action,” she later said. “It lends people voices and unity. It makes us get out of the house and huddle together.” The invitation to the vigil, featuring a sketch of Li wearing glasses and a face mask, circulated in chat groups and social-media posts. It was the first of a series of such services outside China, and there were others in L.A., San Francisco, Boston, Toronto, Melbourne, and Berlin.
Around 12:30 P.M. on Sunday, Mei and a few volunteers gathered on a barren, triangular ground in front of the closed Sheep Meadow, facing the midtown skyline. The sky was bleak and birds were crying in the distance. A man slashed open a few Amazon boxes, revealing two hundred and fifty individually packaged, multi-colored whistles. “It’s more hygienic this way,” Mei said.
The volunteers set up a white banner on a fence. “What does it say?” a passerby asked his companion. She whispered the answer to him, and he repeated it, as if reading an unfamiliar text out loud: “Deep mourning Dr. Li Wenliang?” On the ground, the mourners arranged white and yellow chrysanthemums and started to line up; on the fence, they taped messages submitted by people who couldn’t make it to the event. “Goodbye Dr. Li,” one read. “In the coming days, I will speak every bit of truth in respect of you.”
A data scientist, wearing a light-blue surgical mask, watched the scene. She grew up in Chongqing, where she still has family, and now lives in Westchester. When she first saw the invitation to the vigil on WeChat, she told me, she hesitated. Public assemblies are banned in China, and many overseas Chinese still fear ramifications from attending events like this. But she decided to come anyway. “I’m just an ordinary person sending off another ordinary person,” she said. She lamented how Chinese authorities had failed to take good care of Li. “Now he has died. One only wishes that things would change for the better.”
A young woman in a navy jacket, carrying a bouquet of white lilies, came by. She was a student at Princeton and had learned of the service in her class chat group. “Few people dared to comment, fearing a bad impact on their future,” she said. “After all, most of us plan to return to China.” She is from Zhejiang Province, where more than a thousand cases are confirmed. She was worried about her family’s restaurant: “Business wasn’t so good last year, and then we couldn’t open during Chinese New Year.” Princeton originally asked all returning students who had spent winter break in China to self-quarantine; those plans were scrapped, but a handful of students still chose to isolate themselves.
The Princeton student slipped a yellow whistle over her head. “Dr. Li was a brave man with a clear conscience,” she said. She asked if The New Yorker publishes on WeChat, and was glad that the answer was no, “so no one will see that I came here,” she said.
A crowd gathered at the mourning event for Dr. Li Wenliang at Central Park’s Sheep Meadow, on Sunday. Photograph by Faye Fong
People kept streaming in, and by just after 1 P.M., a crowd of about two hundred had gathered. Most attendees were wearing black. Around half of them wore face masks, or pulled up their scarves above their noses; elsewhere in Manhattan, few people wore masks.
A man in a blue windbreaker jogged by and looked intrigued. Asked if he knew of Dr. Li, he said, “Of course. A hero, for all the wrong reasons.”
The crowd formed a half-moon, facing downtown, as Mei took the stage. “In the past two days, preparing for this event, I came to see the most skittish side of myself,” she told her audience. “I feared something bad would happen at this event, and it would be smeared; I feared all the media that will come, and that one comment from someone would overshadow our intention to mourn and to remember. What I feared the most was addressing people from all walks of life—what if I said something wrong?” To overcome her fears, she said, she thought of Li. “After being admonished by the police, Dr. Li shared the letter online and accepted interviews. He was not looking to say the most correct thing. He said what he wanted to say.”
The crowd started to blow their whistles, sounding like a group of wolves howling at the moon.
A few attendees shared songs and poems they composed for Li. A man in a blue bowler hat tirelessly wrapped the mike with fresh napkins, fastened by a rubber band between speakers. A slight woman took the stage. “It took me six hours to get here from out of state,” she said. “I’m excited and disoriented. Since the outbreak, I’ve been missing and worried for my family and friends in China, because I have no reliable source of information to decide what’s going on there, and how bad it is.” She choked up. “From Dr. Li’s experience, we saw that individuals could be criminalized for sharing real news. This frightens us, and makes all of us worry about access to the truth.”
“In America, freedom of speech is a very safe topic,” a tall, buff young man from Inner Mongolia, his hair in a bun, said. “But, as a student from China, to show my face here in front of cameras, I’m pretty scared. . . . We are mostly safe here, but when we return to China, please, think long and hard. We can’t let Dr. Li’s tragedy happen again.”
The crowd applauded. A man in a black baseball cap, wearing a gray mask and sunglasses, came up. “Dr. Li said that a healthy society shouldn’t have only one voice. I want to say, there shouldn’t be just one voice over here, either.” The crowd was quiet. “Does Dr. Li’s death have anything to do with his speaking the truth?”
“Go back to Weibo,” a man yelled. On Weibo, like other Chinese platforms, voices critical of the government are silenced, and pro-government commentators had tried to divorce Li’s death from his call for freedom of speech.
“Let him finish,” a woman chimed in.
“We shouldn’t protest against not having freedom of speech. We should protest against this epidemic,” the man in the cap continued.
“How did this epidemic become this bad? You tell us!” a man spoke angrily. “We demand the truth,” some people started to chant. The man in the cap was booed off the stage.
A man in a navy Canada Goose jacket took the stage, one hand holding the mike and the other in his pocket. “My parents don’t know I’m here,” he said. “My wife and child came today, too. I heard that agents would be sent here to take photos. If you like, go ahead and take a good, clear picture of my face and send it back.”


newyorker--2020-02-11--Anthony Barboza’s Galaxy of Black Stars

Anthony Barboza’s Galaxy of Black Stars

Anthony Barboza ’ s portrait of the writer and professor Owen Dodson was taken in 1979 .
I was nineteen at the time , and had been friends with Owen for about five years .
The acclaimed director was living in Manhattan ; for decades , he had co-chaired the theatre department at Howard University , where he counted Toni Morrison , Phylicia Rashad , and Robbie McCauley among his students .
I escorted him to Barboza ’ s studio on the East Side , in Manhattan .
Owen by then had about him an air of fatigue and glamour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that , in early middle age , he had suffered a number of debilitating illnesses that made walking difficult .
When he required assistance , I was often there to lend a hand , though at the studio I somehow remember Barboza , with considerable effort , positioning Owen on a tall barstool for the picture .
Owen was part of a galaxy of black stars culled from theatre , film , publishing , and so on , whom Barboza was photographing during that time .
He called the series “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one being the thick black borders that framed most of the images .
Another was his subjects ’ race : many of them were black and , in some sense , bordered the cultural world they should have been dominating .
Looking around Barboza ’ s studio that day , at work that was pinned to the walls , I saw Barboza ’ s pictures of Toukie Smith , the model , and Willi Smith , her brother ; he would die of AIDS in 1987 , and his sister would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help move AIDS research forward .
But that was in the future .
That afternoon , in 1979 , was one of the last that I ’ d spend with Owen .
I felt weighed down by his demands ; I wanted my own life , independent and open to the possibility of love , though in retrospect that wasn ’ t really true .
I was as frightened of closeness as Owen was .
That fear kept us together , and kept us apart .
Still , our bond was deep , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed or wanted from one another—we talked about art , and went to the theatre , and looked at pictures by artists like Anthony Barboza .
I had been aware of his work before that long-ago afternoon .
I ’ d seen some of it in the Village Voice , and on postcards .
And what impressed me greatly about the work was how connected it felt , style-wise , to the surreal and fascinating portraits that Cecil Beaton had taken of the young and talented in England in the nineteen-twenties .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beaton built worlds filled with foil , silver , and ( no doubt Florine Stettheimer-influenced ) cellophane to create atmospheres that promoted dreaming .
In his series , Barboza uses backgrounds that shimmer and shine in accordance with the star shine of his many fascinating subjects , but there is a depth in his pictures that didn ’ t interest Beaton , who was entranced by his own surfaces .
In his photographs , Barboza put forth the idea that surfaces—the subject ’ s and the set ’ s—not only complimented one another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tension between the planes of a face or of his sculptural backgrounds .
Those juxtapositions drew me further into his pictures , and thus into his intelligence and his intuition about people and place .

Anthony Barboza’s portrait of the writer and professor Owen Dodson was taken in 1979. I was nineteen at the time, and had been friends with Owen for about five years. The acclaimed director was living in Manhattan; for decades, he had co-chaired the theatre department at Howard University, where he counted Toni Morrison, Phylicia Rashad, and Robbie McCauley among his students. I escorted him to Barboza’s studio on the East Side, in Manhattan. Owen by then had about him an air of fatigue and glamour; part of that was due to the fact that, in early middle age, he had suffered a number of debilitating illnesses that made walking difficult. When he required assistance, I was often there to lend a hand, though at the studio I somehow remember Barboza, with considerable effort, positioning Owen on a tall barstool for the picture.
Owen was part of a galaxy of black stars culled from theatre, film, publishing, and so on, whom Barboza was photographing during that time. He called the series “Black Borders” for a number reasons, one being the thick black borders that framed most of the images. Another was his subjects’ race: many of them were black and, in some sense, bordered the cultural world they should have been dominating. Looking around Barboza’s studio that day, at work that was pinned to the walls, I saw Barboza’s pictures of Toukie Smith, the model, and Willi Smith, her brother; he would die of AIDS in 1987, and his sister would go on to establish a foundation that would help move AIDS research forward. But that was in the future. That afternoon, in 1979, was one of the last that I’d spend with Owen. I felt weighed down by his demands; I wanted my own life, independent and open to the possibility of love, though in retrospect that wasn’t really true. I was as frightened of closeness as Owen was. That fear kept us together, and kept us apart.
Owen Dodson, 1979.
Still, our bond was deep, and instead of talking about ourselves—what we needed or wanted from one another—we talked about art, and went to the theatre, and looked at pictures by artists like Anthony Barboza. I had been aware of his work before that long-ago afternoon. I’d seen some of it in the Village Voice, and on postcards. And what impressed me greatly about the work was how connected it felt, style-wise, to the surreal and fascinating portraits that Cecil Beaton had taken of the young and talented in England in the nineteen-twenties. I loved those pictures, and especially how Beaton built worlds filled with foil, silver, and (no doubt Florine Stettheimer-influenced) cellophane to create atmospheres that promoted dreaming. In his series, Barboza uses backgrounds that shimmer and shine in accordance with the star shine of his many fascinating subjects, but there is a depth in his pictures that didn’t interest Beaton, who was entranced by his own surfaces. In his photographs, Barboza put forth the idea that surfaces—the subject’s and the set’s—not only complimented one another but could clash, creating a kind of tension between the planes of a face or of his sculptural backgrounds. Those juxtapositions drew me further into his pictures, and thus into his intelligence and his intuition about people and place.


newyorker--2020-02-11--Ahead of the New Hampshire Primary, Trump Tries to Make Trouble for the Democrats

One New Hampshire result is not in doubt : Donald Trump will win the Republican primary .
His closest contender , Bill Weld , is polling in the single digits , even though he was once the governor of New Hampshire ’ s neighbor , Massachusetts .
So it wasn ’ t as much to campaign as to gloat that Trump held a rally in Manchester on Monday night , before about twelve thousand people .
The arena was full ; Trump congratulated his supporters in the front rows for waiting “ four days outside in the rain and snow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while that was overstating it , the line had begun to form early Sunday morning and the weather was not good .
( The Union Leader noted that some of the first arrivals were people from out of state , who follow Trump from rally to rally . )
Trump is so sure of victory that , from the stage , he speculated about his supporters moseying over to the Democratic primary and engaging in a little bit of strategic voting—just to cause trouble .
“ You have crossovers in primaries , don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , referring to the option that allows voters in New Hampshire who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans to vote in either party ’ s contest .
“ So I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible of the Democrats .
Does that make sense ?
You people wouldn ’ t do that !
” He spread out his arms with a lopsided smile , like a salesman telling customers that people as discerning as they are don ’ t need to hear about a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he ’ ll mention it anyway .
But there was a catch , Trump continued .
“ My only problem is I ’ m trying to figure who is their weakest candidate—I think they ’ re all weak !
” Strategic voting is always difficult to measure ; the main point for Trump seemed to be the theatre of it all .
Still , for another politician , it might have been an area to stay away from , given that Trump was just impeached and tried for actions in Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Joe Biden , who , at the time , was the Democratic front-runner .
But , then , earlier in the rally , Trump had denounced what he called “ the outrageous partisan impeachment hoax , ” and trumpeted his “ full , complete , and absolute total acquittal.
” ( When he mentioned Mitt Romney , who voted in the Senate trial to convict him on one of the two articles of impeachment , the crowd jeered . )
And , with regard to Biden , the math has changed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his poor finish in Iowa .
A recanvass has been requested in that state , where the results were delayed and now show a narrow lead for Pete Buttigieg in the delegate count—the traditional measure of an Iowa victory—though more people seem to have aligned with Bernie Sanders in the caucuses .
But the mess couldn ’ t conceal the fact that Biden appeared to have finished a distant fourth .
Trump rejoiced in that caucus chaos ; he used the rally in Manchester to repeat what is becoming a standard Republican attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run your health care , but they can ’ t even run a caucus in Iowa !
” The caucuses became a punch line for Trump and an instrument for his interaction with the crowd , which is one of the elements of his rallies that draws people to them .
“ It ’ s now a week .
Does anybody know who won Iowa ?
I don ’ t know ” —he scanned the audience , as if looking for a courier from Des Moines—but “ maybe Rand or Lindsey ” knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Lindsey Graham , of South Carolina , were both present and visible , and presumably standing by for Iowa-punditry duty , or any other task that Trump set before them .
“ Rand !
Does anybody know who won ?
Lindsey !
You ’ re a total pro .
Nobody knows !
He said nobody .
Flip a coin !
Flip a coin !
” The cameras caught a row of Republican elected officials standing , nodding , and laughing appreciatively .
They included the House Minority Leader , Kevin McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Florida , and Mike Johnson , of Louisiana , who , as members of the House Judiciary Committee , had vehemently defended Trump in the impeachment hearings .
( Last week , Trump , in his post-acquittal remarks , said that Gaetz had “ a great gene.
” ) Graham and Paul , who were also prominent impeachment defenders , were “ Great guys—warriors !
They ’ re warriors !
” ( Paul spent a lot of time trying to get the name of a person widely believed to be the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including by way of a poster that he set up on the Senate floor during his speech at the close of the trial . )
And they and their Republican colleagues were “ my congressmen and senators.
” Another regular function of the rallies is to dole out favors and flattery and to establish Trump ’ s dominance over the G.O.P .
But the President can not resist trying to divide the Democrats and to sow uncertainty about the integrity of the elections more generally .
And Iowa gave him an opening .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to take it away from Bernie again , ” Trump said , referring to lingering complaints among Sanders supporters about how delegates were apportioned in his narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Iowa caucuses , and to their continuing resentment about what they view as the Democratic Party ’ s institutional resistance to him .
“ They ’ re doing it to you again , Bernie !
They ’ re doing it to you again !
” The speech also included a dose of Trumpian digressions , including one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I tell you .
Rough , rough stuff .
But I think it ’ s going to work out good !
” He also reprised a signature of his 2016 rallies , by reciting the poem “ The Snake , ” meant as a parable of the insidious destruction wrought by migrants—a reminder that , with regard to immigration , in particular , this reëlection campaign will only get uglier .
And there was praise for the border wall , which Trump framed in oddly Luddite terms : “ With all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computers , the new genius , the new everything , cyber this , cyber that , two things never change , right ?
A wheel , and a wall.
” And , he added , “ it ’ s a high wall.
” But , throughout , he kept returning to the Democrats .
“ As we keep on winning , Washington Democrats keep on losing their minds .
They ’ re crazy !
” Trump said .
He had opened the rally with an attack on Nancy Pelosi , who , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him during last week ’ s State of the Union address , and tore up her copy of the speech when it had ended .
Had the crowd watched the State of the Union , he asked ?
“ I had somebody behind me who was mumbling terribly .
Mumbling .
Mumbling !
‘ Hoowah , hoowah , ho hah !
’ ” Some people in the crowd began chanting “ Lock her up !
Lock her up !
” Trump , appearing to hear them , gave a thumbs-up , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become an all-purpose response to women whom Trump doesn ’ t like .
As it died down , he added , “ I ’ m speaking , and a woman is mumbling terribly behind me .
Angry .
There was a little anger back there .
We ’ re the ones who should be angry !
” As the speech went on , he reminded his supporters of what should make them angry : immigrants , impeachment , socialism , and Washington .
“ That swamp is a dirty swamp !
” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some really evil , dirty , horrible people.
” In contrast , “ We will defend privacy , free speech , religious liberty , and the right to-o-o .
.
.
” he stretched the word out , prompting the crowd .
Trump confirmed that this was the reply he was looking for , and warned the crowd , “ They ’ re going to take away everything .
They ’ re going to take away your wealth .
They ’ re going to take away your guns .
They ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ booed loudly .
It seemed that they didn ’ t want the Democrats to take away this moment , or their President .
Follow live election results from the New Hampshire primary .
In New Hampshire , Sanders and Warren promise bold , fundamental change .
But they struggle to conjure a vision of America that aggressively counters Trump ’ s .
After a disappointing fourth-place finish in Iowa , Joe Biden is struggling in New Hampshire .
He is polling in a tie for third place in the state , ten points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the leader , Bernie Sanders .

One New Hampshire result is not in doubt: Donald Trump will win the Republican primary. His closest contender, Bill Weld, is polling in the single digits, even though he was once the governor of New Hampshire’s neighbor, Massachusetts. So it wasn’t as much to campaign as to gloat that Trump held a rally in Manchester on Monday night, before about twelve thousand people. The arena was full; Trump congratulated his supporters in the front rows for waiting “four days outside in the rain and snow” to get in, and, while that was overstating it, the line had begun to form early Sunday morning and the weather was not good. (The Union Leader noted that some of the first arrivals were people from out of state, who follow Trump from rally to rally.) Trump is so sure of victory that, from the stage, he speculated about his supporters moseying over to the Democratic primary and engaging in a little bit of strategic voting—just to cause trouble.
“You have crossovers in primaries, don’t you?” Trump said, referring to the option that allows voters in New Hampshire who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans to vote in either party’s contest. “So I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible of the Democrats. Does that make sense? You people wouldn’t do that!” He spread out his arms with a lopsided smile, like a salesman telling customers that people as discerning as they are don’t need to hear about a special discount on the premium gold golf-vacation package, but he’ll mention it anyway. But there was a catch, Trump continued. “My only problem is I’m trying to figure who is their weakest candidate—I think they’re all weak!”
Strategic voting is always difficult to measure; the main point for Trump seemed to be the theatre of it all. Still, for another politician, it might have been an area to stay away from, given that Trump was just impeached and tried for actions in Ukraine that were aimed at undermining the campaign of Joe Biden, who, at the time, was the Democratic front-runner. But, then, earlier in the rally, Trump had denounced what he called “the outrageous partisan impeachment hoax,” and trumpeted his “full, complete, and absolute total acquittal.” (When he mentioned Mitt Romney, who voted in the Senate trial to convict him on one of the two articles of impeachment, the crowd jeered.) And, with regard to Biden, the math has changed, with his drop in the polls and his poor finish in Iowa. A recanvass has been requested in that state, where the results were delayed and now show a narrow lead for Pete Buttigieg in the delegate count—the traditional measure of an Iowa victory—though more people seem to have aligned with Bernie Sanders in the caucuses. But the mess couldn’t conceal the fact that Biden appeared to have finished a distant fourth.
Trump rejoiced in that caucus chaos; he used the rally in Manchester to repeat what is becoming a standard Republican attack: “The Democrat Party wants to run your health care, but they can’t even run a caucus in Iowa!” The caucuses became a punch line for Trump and an instrument for his interaction with the crowd, which is one of the elements of his rallies that draws people to them. “It’s now a week. Does anybody know who won Iowa? I don’t know”—he scanned the audience, as if looking for a courier from Des Moines—but “maybe Rand or Lindsey” knew. Senators Rand Paul, of Kentucky, and Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, were both present and visible, and presumably standing by for Iowa-punditry duty, or any other task that Trump set before them. “Rand! Does anybody know who won? Lindsey! You’re a total pro. Nobody knows! He said nobody. Flip a coin! Flip a coin!”
The cameras caught a row of Republican elected officials standing, nodding, and laughing appreciatively. They included the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, and the congressmen Matt Gaetz, of Florida, and Mike Johnson, of Louisiana, who, as members of the House Judiciary Committee, had vehemently defended Trump in the impeachment hearings. (Last week, Trump, in his post-acquittal remarks, said that Gaetz had “a great gene.”) Graham and Paul, who were also prominent impeachment defenders, were “Great guys—warriors! They’re warriors!” (Paul spent a lot of time trying to get the name of a person widely believed to be the Ukraine whistle-blower in front of the public, including by way of a poster that he set up on the Senate floor during his speech at the close of the trial.) And they and their Republican colleagues were “my congressmen and senators.” Another regular function of the rallies is to dole out favors and flattery and to establish Trump’s dominance over the G.O.P.
But the President cannot resist trying to divide the Democrats and to sow uncertainty about the integrity of the elections more generally. And Iowa gave him an opening. “Actually, I think they’re trying to take it away from Bernie again,” Trump said, referring to lingering complaints among Sanders supporters about how delegates were apportioned in his narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, and to their continuing resentment about what they view as the Democratic Party’s institutional resistance to him. “They’re doing it to you again, Bernie! They’re doing it to you again!”
The speech also included a dose of Trumpian digressions, including one about the coronavirus: “Rough stuff, I tell you. Rough, rough stuff. But I think it’s going to work out good!” He also reprised a signature of his 2016 rallies, by reciting the poem “The Snake,” meant as a parable of the insidious destruction wrought by migrants—a reminder that, with regard to immigration, in particular, this reëlection campaign will only get uglier. And there was praise for the border wall, which Trump framed in oddly Luddite terms: “With all the modern technology, all of the new computers, the new genius, the new everything, cyber this, cyber that, two things never change, right? A wheel, and a wall.” And, he added, “it’s a high wall.”
But, throughout, he kept returning to the Democrats. “As we keep on winning, Washington Democrats keep on losing their minds. They’re crazy!” Trump said. He had opened the rally with an attack on Nancy Pelosi, who, as Speaker of the House, sat behind him during last week’s State of the Union address, and tore up her copy of the speech when it had ended. Had the crowd watched the State of the Union, he asked? “I had somebody behind me who was mumbling terribly. Mumbling. Mumbling! ‘Hoowah, hoowah, ho hah!’ ” Some people in the crowd began chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!” Trump, appearing to hear them, gave a thumbs-up, and more voices joined in. The chant has become an all-purpose response to women whom Trump doesn’t like. As it died down, he added, “I’m speaking, and a woman is mumbling terribly behind me. Angry. There was a little anger back there. We’re the ones who should be angry!”
As the speech went on, he reminded his supporters of what should make them angry: immigrants, impeachment, socialism, and Washington. “That swamp is a dirty swamp!” Trump said, adding, “You have some really evil, dirty, horrible people.” In contrast, “We will defend privacy, free speech, religious liberty, and the right to-o-o . . .” he stretched the word out, prompting the crowd.
“Bear arms!” they answered.
Trump confirmed that this was the reply he was looking for, and warned the crowd, “They’re going to take away everything. They’re going to take away your wealth. They’re going to take away your guns. They’re going to take away everything.” His supporters booed loudly. It seemed that they didn’t want the Democrats to take away this moment, or their President.
Latest Coverage
See the election results from the New Hampshire primary.
The New Hampshire results signal a long nationwide Democratic battle. The Party’s candidates will almost certainly have to grind it out until early June, when the final primaries will take place.
“This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump!” Bernie Sanders said, at a primary-night party in New Hampshire.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, but his performance was not as impressive as it was in 2016.
In New Hampshire, Sanders and Warren promise bold, fundamental change. But they struggle to conjure a vision of America that aggressively counters Trump’s.
After a disappointing fourth-place finish in Iowa, Joe Biden is struggling in New Hampshire.


newyorker--2020-02-11--In New Hampshire, Sanders and Warren Portray Themselves as Fixers, Not Visionaries

The snow is white .
Many of the houses are white .
The majority of the people are white ; this is the third-whitest state in the union .
New Hampshire , especially in winter , is overwhelmingly , inescapably white .
The only nonwhite person I could see at the Salt Hill Pub in Newport was one of Elizabeth Warren ’ s press aides .
The Salt Hill Pub was a between-events stop—not on the schedule , a late addition shared with select members of the media .
People ate quesadillas or chicken wings out of plastic baskets lined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren : straight couples with small children , older attendees wearing cable-knit sweaters , a lot of beards , which ranged from blond to white .
Those in the know were told that Warren would arrive at four in the afternoon .
She entered at 4:05 , wearing a long red cardigan .
“ It was exactly three years ago this weekend that Mitch McConnell tried to throw me off the floor of the Senate for reading a letter from Coretta Scott King , ” Warren said .
On February 7 , 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeff Sessions ’ s nomination as Attorney General , Warren read from a letter that King had written three decades earlier , about Sessions ’ s racism .
At Senate Majority Leader McConnell ’ s instigation , the Republican majority voted to stop Warren , on the grounds that she was impugning a senator ’ s reputation .
Later , Senator Jeff Merkley , of Oregon , was able to finish reading the letter into the record .
The incident is best remembered , however , for a remark McConnell made : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explanation .
Nevertheless , she persisted.
” The phrase became a hashtag , a T-shirt , and even the title of a children ’ s book by Chelsea Clinton .
Invoking it at Salt Hill Pub allowed Warren to pivot to the topic of her gender , or , rather , to the question of so-called electability—which seems to be related to the question of why Warren has fallen behind in the polls lately .
“ What is interesting to me , ” Warren said , “ is people asking , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
The world has changed since 2016. .
.
.
Remember what happened the very next day after he was inaugurated ?
” Warren was referring to Trump and the Women ’ s March , which “ is still going on.
” The numbers , she said , showed that women beat men in competitive elections .
“ In the nineteen-sixties , they said we couldn ’ t elect a Catholic , and the Democratic Party nominated a Catholic anyway .
In 2008 , they said we couldn ’ t elect a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominated a black man anyway.
” Will the Democratic Party nominate a woman in 2020 , to give American voters a chance to redefine “ electability ” once again ?
This is the question she asked , although not in so many words .
Then one of her campaign staffers signalled that it was time to go .
Warren begged to be able to take questions , and got permission to field two .
The routine appeared both well-rehearsed and sincere : Warren loves to take questions .
First up , an older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweed vest , and plaid pants , had more of a comment than a question .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s that a woman can ’ t get elected , ” he said .
“ It ’ s that something has happened in the electorate.
” Warren responded with a spark of recognition .
“ I think that a country that elects Donald Trump is a country that has serious problems , ” she agreed .
“ It ’ s not like we were on the right track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a sense that something doesn ’ t work , and this has been going on for decades.
” The something that doesn ’ t work is the economy , which favors corporations and billionaires and drives tens of millions of others into poverty , and a government that facilitates this growing inequality and injustice .
“ It ’ s this disillusion that just goes deeper and deeper , that the government just isn ’ t working for the people , ” Warren continued .
“ It ’ s not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a democracy that doesn ’ t work .
.
.
.
What Donald Trump has done is he ’ s taken a democracy that was already in trouble and made it so much worse—and it ’ s also an opportunity.
” It ’ s an opportunity to remake the country , introduce free college and universal health care , and cancel most student debt .
Despite the prior agreement with her staffer , Warren took a third question , from Abigail Kier , a health-care administrator and volunteer city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a population of fourteen thousand .
Kier was there with her husband , Matt , a chemistry doctoral student at Dartmouth , and their two-year-old son , Curtis .
She asked about Warren ’ s plans for rural communities .
Warren acted like she had been waiting for this question all her life .
“ What I have loved about being able to run for President is that I have been able to go out and learn stuff , ” she said .
She has learned , for example , that keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of keeping people living in rural communities , and that the availability of high-speed Internet is essential to creating economic opportunities in rural areas .
And she has also grown ever more convinced that her proposed two-per-cent wealth tax , which would create federal funds for such essential services as child care and schools , would go a long way toward making rural communities more vibrant .
Cancelling student debt would help , too , because it would liberate people from needing to stay near higher-wage jobs in bigger cities , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
The fourth , entirely bonus , question came from Birdie , the four-year-old daughter of the local activist and state-senate candidate Jenn Alford-Teaster , who was hosting the event .
“ When this is over , do you know that you are supposed to get into the car ?
” Birdie asked .
This question , apparently unplanned , was Warren ’ s perfect cue to get into a car that would take her to Lebanon , where she would hold her second big rally of the day .
Both Kier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly endorsed Warren .
“ Warren has been here consistently , ” Alford-Teaster said .
“ She has small working groups .
She really knows what she is talking about .
And she is the only one who consistently answers the call.
” Most primary candidates , apparently , don ’ t show up for in-between events at roadside restaurants—though in the final days before the primary , Bernie Sanders , Andrew Yang , and Michael Bennet also stopped nearby .
The Democratic-primary process has existed in more or less its present shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or just long enough that Party members can imagine no other way of selecting a nominee .
The process lends itself to a particular kind of coverage .
Journalists approach the primaries the way they approach sports : by making predictions , trailing the presumed winners , and proving their mettle by switching tracks , nimbly , on time .
When polls and conventional wisdom predict that a candidate is likely to win , this begets more coverage , which exerts its own pressure on polls and conventional wisdom , which in turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting is standard practice , and yet it is also standard for voters to disparage it and aspire to an alternative .
A preferred alternative , it is generally agreed , would be to focus on the candidates ’ issues rather than the dynamics of the race .
This is a more complicated proposition than it seems .

The snow is white. Many of the houses are white. The majority of the people are white; this is the third-whitest state in the union. New Hampshire, especially in winter, is overwhelmingly, inescapably white.
The only nonwhite person I could see at the Salt Hill Pub in Newport was one of Elizabeth Warren’s press aides. The Salt Hill Pub was a between-events stop—not on the schedule, a late addition shared with select members of the media. People ate quesadillas or chicken wings out of plastic baskets lined with checkered paper as they waited for Warren: straight couples with small children, older attendees wearing cable-knit sweaters, a lot of beards, which ranged from blond to white.
Those in the know were told that Warren would arrive at four in the afternoon. She entered at 4:05, wearing a long red cardigan. “It was exactly three years ago this weekend that Mitch McConnell tried to throw me off the floor of the Senate for reading a letter from Coretta Scott King,” Warren said. On February 7, 2017, during the Senate confirmation hearings on Jeff Sessions’s nomination as Attorney General, Warren read from a letter that King had written three decades earlier, about Sessions’s racism. At Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s instigation, the Republican majority voted to stop Warren, on the grounds that she was impugning a senator’s reputation. Later, Senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, was able to finish reading the letter into the record.
The incident is best remembered, however, for a remark McConnell made: “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” The phrase became a hashtag, a T-shirt, and even the title of a children’s book by Chelsea Clinton. Invoking it at Salt Hill Pub allowed Warren to pivot to the topic of her gender, or, rather, to the question of so-called electability—which seems to be related to the question of why Warren has fallen behind in the polls lately. “What is interesting to me,” Warren said, “is people asking, ‘Can a woman win?’ . . . The world has changed since 2016. . . . Remember what happened the very next day after he was inaugurated?” Warren was referring to Trump and the Women’s March, which “is still going on.” The numbers, she said, showed that women beat men in competitive elections. “In the nineteen-sixties, they said we couldn’t elect a Catholic, and the Democratic Party nominated a Catholic anyway. In 2008, they said we couldn’t elect a black man, and the Democratic Party nominated a black man anyway.” Will the Democratic Party nominate a woman in 2020, to give American voters a chance to redefine “electability” once again? This is the question she asked, although not in so many words.
Then one of her campaign staffers signalled that it was time to go. Warren begged to be able to take questions, and got permission to field two. The routine appeared both well-rehearsed and sincere: Warren loves to take questions. First up, an older man, wearing a collarless shirt, a tweed vest, and plaid pants, had more of a comment than a question. “I don’t think it’s that a woman can’t get elected,” he said. “It’s that something has happened in the electorate.” Warren responded with a spark of recognition. “I think that a country that elects Donald Trump is a country that has serious problems,” she agreed. “It’s not like we were on the right track and then Donald Trump got elected. It’s a sense that something doesn’t work, and this has been going on for decades.” The something that doesn’t work is the economy, which favors corporations and billionaires and drives tens of millions of others into poverty, and a government that facilitates this growing inequality and injustice.
“It’s this disillusion that just goes deeper and deeper, that the government just isn’t working for the people,” Warren continued. “It’s not only an economy that doesn’t work, it’s a democracy that doesn’t work. . . . What Donald Trump has done is he’s taken a democracy that was already in trouble and made it so much worse—and it’s also an opportunity.” It’s an opportunity to remake the country, introduce free college and universal health care, and cancel most student debt.
Despite the prior agreement with her staffer, Warren took a third question, from Abigail Kier, a health-care administrator and volunteer city councillor from Claremont, a neighboring town with a population of fourteen thousand. Kier was there with her husband, Matt, a chemistry doctoral student at Dartmouth, and their two-year-old son, Curtis. She asked about Warren’s plans for rural communities. Warren acted like she had been waiting for this question all her life. “What I have loved about being able to run for President is that I have been able to go out and learn stuff,” she said. She has learned, for example, that keeping rural hospitals open is the most important part of keeping people living in rural communities, and that the availability of high-speed Internet is essential to creating economic opportunities in rural areas. And she has also grown ever more convinced that her proposed two-per-cent wealth tax, which would create federal funds for such essential services as child care and schools, would go a long way toward making rural communities more vibrant. Cancelling student debt would help, too, because it would liberate people from needing to stay near higher-wage jobs in bigger cities, and allow those from rural areas to return home.
The fourth, entirely bonus, question came from Birdie, the four-year-old daughter of the local activist and state-senate candidate Jenn Alford-Teaster, who was hosting the event. “When this is over, do you know that you are supposed to get into the car?” Birdie asked. This question, apparently unplanned, was Warren’s perfect cue to get into a car that would take her to Lebanon, where she would hold her second big rally of the day.
Both Kier and Alford-Teaster told me that they have publicly endorsed Warren. “Warren has been here consistently,” Alford-Teaster said. “She has small working groups. She really knows what she is talking about. And she is the only one who consistently answers the call.” Most primary candidates, apparently, don’t show up for in-between events at roadside restaurants—though in the final days before the primary, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Michael Bennet also stopped nearby.
The Democratic-primary process has existed in more or less its present shape for less than half a century, or just long enough that Party members can imagine no other way of selecting a nominee. The process lends itself to a particular kind of coverage. Journalists approach the primaries the way they approach sports: by making predictions, trailing the presumed winners, and proving their mettle by switching tracks, nimbly, on time. When polls and conventional wisdom predict that a candidate is likely to win, this begets more coverage, which exerts its own pressure on polls and conventional wisdom, which in turn feeds coverage. This kind of horse-race reporting is standard practice, and yet it is also standard for voters to disparage it and aspire to an alternative. A preferred alternative, it is generally agreed, would be to focus on the candidates’ issues rather than the dynamics of the race. This is a more complicated proposition than it seems.
The media scholar Jay Rosen has advocated for what he calls the “citizens agenda in election coverage.” This approach is designed, first, to find out what the community wants the candidates to be talking about; and, second, to tell voters what the candidates think about the issues the community has identified. Such an approach would undoubtedly be an improvement over the horse-race style of coverage, but it is exceedingly difficult to graft onto the protracted and convoluted primary process. It would also leave little room for what I think drives politics, or, at least, what ought to drive politics at this moment: imagination, the ability to talk about ideas that have not yet occurred to many voters, the daring to envision a future that is more appealing than Trump’s promise of a return to the imaginary past. It assumes that voters want candidates only to answer the questions they ask, rather than to make them think about and perhaps want things they have not considered before.
Both Warren and Sanders are running on the promise of transforming, rather than merely fixing, the country. They represent not only what is conventionally referred to as the left wing of the Democratic Party but also the future-oriented wing of the Party. In the 2016 contest, when Trump ran to “make America great again,” Hillary Clinton countered, in effect, with, America is fine as it is. Clinton’s campaign offered up the present as an alternative to the past, and too often ignored the deep pain and dysfunction that was driving the election in the first place. In 2020, the candidates conventionally referred to as centrists—Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar—come from the Clinton mold: they promise to fix things and return them to an imaginary, pre-Trumpian normal, when good management made the country run well. Warren and Sanders reject this premise and promise bold, fundamental changes to the system.


newyorker--2020-02-11--A Look at Wes Anderson’s New, New Yorker-Inspired Film

Wes Anderson ’ s new movie , “ The French Dispatch , ” which will open this summer , is @ @ @ @ @ fictional weekly magazine that looks an awful lot like—and was , in fact , inspired @ @ @ @ @ editor and writers of this fictional magazine , and the stories it publishes—three of which @ @ @ @ @ also loosely inspired by The New Yorker .
Anderson has been a New Yorker devotee @ @ @ @ @ , and has even amassed a vast collection of bound volumes of the magazine , @ @ @ @ @ .
That he has placed his fictional magazine in a made-up French metropolis ( it @ @ @ @ @ , at some point midway through the last century , only makes connecting the dots @ @ @ @ @ ” and The New Yorker that much more delightful .

Wes Anderson’s new movie, “The French Dispatch,” which will open this summer, is about the doings of a fictional weekly magazine that looks an awful lot like—and was, in fact, inspired by—The New Yorker. The editor and writers of this fictional magazine, and the stories it publishes—three of which are dramatized in the film—are also loosely inspired by The New Yorker. Anderson has been a New Yorker devotee since he was a teen-ager, and has even amassed a vast collection of bound volumes of the magazine, going back to the nineteen-forties. That he has placed his fictional magazine in a made-up French metropolis (it’s called Ennui-sur-Blasé), at some point midway through the last century, only makes connecting the dots between “The French Dispatch” and The New Yorker that much more delightful.


newyorker--2020-02-11--Trump’s Reverse–Robin Hood Budget Should Be a Gift to the Democrats

February hasn ’ t been a good month for the Democratic Party , but on Monday the White House gave it a much-needed present : a budget proposal for the 2021 fiscal year .
The budget reneges on Donald Trump ’ s repeated vow to protect Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid—a pledge that helped him attract voters in 2016 .
It also proposes unprecedented cuts in spending for other popular programs and institutions , such as the Affordable Care Act , the National Institutes of Health , and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this election-year horror script , they really are in trouble .
The White House is practically inviting them to run a repeat of their successful 2018 campaign , which focussed on Republican plans to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act .
Now Democrats can make that case again , and point to the budget document as irrefutable evidence that the destructive cutbacks by Trump and his Republican allies extend well beyond health care .
Under the budget proposal , the White House would seek unspecified reductions to the A.C.A .
budget , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private health care through insurance exchanges , and make major cuts in Medicaid , the government-run health-care plan for poor people and families .
After its expansion under the A.C.A.
, Medicaid now provides coverage to some seventy-one million Americans , a little more than half of whom are children .
Taken together , the cuts to the A.C.A .
and Medicaid would total more than a trillion dollars over ten years , relative to the current baseline .
Medicare , the federal health-care program that nearly fifty-nine million American seniors use , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House is looking to achieve hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings over the next decade , relative to the baseline , by changing the way doctors are paid and making other changes .
Health care isn ’ t the only part of the social safety net that the Administration is hoping to cut .
It also proposes slashing the SNAP program , formerly known as food stamps , which thirty-four million low-income Americans rely on to get by from week to week .
The budget would “ push tens of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into poverty and cause widespread hardship even as it doubles down on tax cuts for the most well-off , ” Robert Greenstein , the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , a liberal think tank , said .
“ It would take health coverage away from millions of people and cut aid to millions of families and individuals struggling to make ends meet .
At the same time , the budget would make permanent the 2017 tax law ’ s tax cuts for individuals , which are heavily weighted toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify its draconian proposals by claiming that spending is out of control and the country needs to reduce the budget deficit .
But a large part of the problem is that the Trump-G.O.P .
tax cuts , from 2017 , denuded the tax base to such an extent that , even with the unemployment rate at 3.6 per cent , the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that federal tax revenues will be just 16.4 per cent of G.D.P .
this year .
It ’ s the same reverse–Robin Hood strategy that the Administrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopted : pass big tax cuts slanted toward the rich , then claim you have to balance the budget on the backs of the masses .
For Trump to put his name to these proposals in an election year seems like a strategic blunder .
Just six months ago , he publicly disavowed the hawkish approach toward spending that the budget embodies by supporting a two-year bipartisan agreement to increase spending substantially on military and non-military programs .
“ Go for it Republicans , there is always plenty of time to CUT !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now his own White House is boasting about the unprecedented scale of the spending cuts it is proposing .
“ This year ’ s budget includes $ 4.6 trillion of deficit reduction , including more spending reductions than any previous administration , ” a White House fact sheet said .
Apart from a few favored agencies , such as NASA and ICE , almost all domestic agencies would see substantial cuts .
The budget of the Environmental Protection Agency would be slashed by 26.5 per cent in a single year ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13.4-per-cent chop ; and the Department of Education would face an eight-per-cent reduction .
Even the National Institutes of Health , which pays for life-saving medical research , would see its budget cut by 6.5 per cent .
To be sure , there is little chance of these cuts being enacted anytime soon .
The two-year spending agreement is still in place , and congressional budget appropriators are virtually certain to abide by it until 2021 .
On Tuesday , various voices on Capitol Hill declared the new document dead on arrival , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House budgets have received a similar reception for years , under Presidents of both parties .
But the Trump Administration has laid down a marker , which the Democrats can pick up between now and November .
In New Hampshire , two of the Democratic front-runners are already responding to it .
“ The old cliche is that a budget is a moral document , ” Bernie Sanders said , in a statement , on Monday .
“ What kind of unbelievable moral framework allowed this White House to propose $ 182 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families , when nearly one in seven households with children are food insecure ?
” Pete Buttigieg also assailed the budget , at an event in Milford , New Hampshire .
“ Cuts to environmental protection , cuts to public education .
He ’ s already said that Social Security is fair game , ” Buttigieg said .
“ The President of the United States thinks we ’ re suckers.
” These statements are a good start .
The Democrats need to stick to them , and intensify their attacks .
A central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he campaigned as a populist and has ruled as an oligarch , showering favors on corporations and the rich , himself included .
Just in time for primary season , his White House has published a road map for a second term , which involves extending those favors and slashing programs that benefit the middle class and the poor .
Get to it , Democrats .

February hasn’t been a good month for the Democratic Party, but on Monday the White House gave it a much-needed present: a budget proposal for the 2021 fiscal year. The budget reneges on Donald Trump’s repeated vow to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—a pledge that helped him attract voters in 2016. It also proposes unprecedented cuts in spending for other popular programs and institutions, such as the Affordable Care Act, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If the Democrats can’t take advantage of this election-year horror script, they really are in trouble. The White House is practically inviting them to run a repeat of their successful 2018 campaign, which focussed on Republican plans to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act. Now Democrats can make that case again, and point to the budget document as irrefutable evidence that the destructive cutbacks by Trump and his Republican allies extend well beyond health care.
Under the budget proposal, the White House would seek unspecified reductions to the A.C.A. budget, which helps people of modest means purchase private health care through insurance exchanges, and make major cuts in Medicaid, the government-run health-care plan for poor people and families. After its expansion under the A.C.A., Medicaid now provides coverage to some seventy-one million Americans, a little more than half of whom are children. Taken together, the cuts to the A.C.A. and Medicaid would total more than a trillion dollars over ten years, relative to the current baseline.
Medicare, the federal health-care program that nearly fifty-nine million American seniors use, would also be targeted. The White House is looking to achieve hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings over the next decade, relative to the baseline, by changing the way doctors are paid and making other changes.
Health care isn’t the only part of the social safety net that the Administration is hoping to cut. It also proposes slashing the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps, which thirty-four million low-income Americans rely on to get by from week to week. The budget would “push tens of millions of less fortunate Americans into or deeper into poverty and cause widespread hardship even as it doubles down on tax cuts for the most well-off,” Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said. “It would take health coverage away from millions of people and cut aid to millions of families and individuals struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, the budget would make permanent the 2017 tax law’s tax cuts for individuals, which are heavily weighted toward the top.”
The budget tries to justify its draconian proposals by claiming that spending is out of control and the country needs to reduce the budget deficit. But a large part of the problem is that the Trump-G.O.P. tax cuts, from 2017, denuded the tax base to such an extent that, even with the unemployment rate at 3.6 per cent, the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that federal tax revenues will be just 16.4 per cent of G.D.P. this year. It’s the same reverse–Robin Hood strategy that the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush adopted: pass big tax cuts slanted toward the rich, then claim you have to balance the budget on the backs of the masses.
For Trump to put his name to these proposals in an election year seems like a strategic blunder. Just six months ago, he publicly disavowed the hawkish approach toward spending that the budget embodies by supporting a two-year bipartisan agreement to increase spending substantially on military and non-military programs. “Go for it Republicans, there is always plenty of time to CUT!” Trump tweeted, back in August. Now his own White House is boasting about the unprecedented scale of the spending cuts it is proposing.
“This year’s budget includes $4.6 trillion of deficit reduction, including more spending reductions than any previous administration,” a White House fact sheet said. Apart from a few favored agencies, such as NASA and ICE, almost all domestic agencies would see substantial cuts. The budget of the Environmental Protection Agency would be slashed by 26.5 per cent in a single year; the Department of the Interior would see a 13.4-per-cent chop; and the Department of Education would face an eight-per-cent reduction. Even the National Institutes of Health, which pays for life-saving medical research, would see its budget cut by 6.5 per cent.
To be sure, there is little chance of these cuts being enacted anytime soon. The two-year spending agreement is still in place, and congressional budget appropriators are virtually certain to abide by it until 2021. On Tuesday, various voices on Capitol Hill declared the new document dead on arrival, which wasn’t surprising: White House budgets have received a similar reception for years, under Presidents of both parties. But the Trump Administration has laid down a marker, which the Democrats can pick up between now and November.
In New Hampshire, two of the Democratic front-runners are already responding to it. “The old cliche is that a budget is a moral document,” Bernie Sanders said, in a statement, on Monday. “What kind of unbelievable moral framework allowed this White House to propose $182 billion in cuts to nutrition assistance from needy families, when nearly one in seven households with children are food insecure?” Pete Buttigieg also assailed the budget, at an event in Milford, New Hampshire. “Cuts to environmental protection, cuts to public education. He’s already said that Social Security is fair game,” Buttigieg said. “The President of the United States thinks we’re suckers.”
These statements are a good start. The Democrats need to stick to them, and intensify their attacks. A central fact about Trump’s record is that he campaigned as a populist and has ruled as an oligarch, showering favors on corporations and the rich, himself included. Just in time for primary season, his White House has published a road map for a second term, which involves extending those favors and slashing programs that benefit the middle class and the poor. Get to it, Democrats.


newyorker--2020-02-11--A “Dracula” for the Age of #MeToo

A “Dracula” for the Age of #MeToo

The trial of Harvey Weinstein has brought a sense of dramatic climax : the fallen producer symbolizes the crest of a cultural reckoning with male abusers and predators .
The testimony at the trial and the wider discourse of the # MeToo movement is the stuff of horror stories , with tell of monsters in the guise of men poised to attack .
A hundred and twenty-three years ago , Bram Stoker imagined his own kind of monster in his horror novel “ Dracula , ” with an eponymous demon-figure who would become a fixture in literature and pop culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage adaptation that premièred last month , at Classic Stage Company , however , the villain isn ’ t romanticized and the women aren ’ t in distress—and there ’ s no place for a man to swoop in and save the day .
“ I thought we ’ re overdue for a feminist ‘ Dracula , ’ ” Kate Hamill , the playwright behind the production , said .
“ ‘ Dracula ’ is something that is very much in the cultural Zeitgeist .
It ’ s absolutely inescapable , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to reclaim that from a feminist perspective and really explore vampires as patriarchal figures ?
” This isn ’ t Hamill ’ s first rodeo ; she ’ s become known on New York stages for her lively , funny adaptations of classic works by and about women , such as “ Pride and Prejudice ” and “ Vanity Fair.
” Her style is markedly feminist , highlighting the willful smarts of her protagonists while also flouncing any notions of self-seriousness that might cling to classic works .
Her productions feature physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asides , all of which impart old tales with a mindful , contemporary flair .
Still , the Gothic , male-centric horror of “ Dracula ” doesn ’ t quite mesh with the romances and societal dramas of Jane Austen .
That ’ s partly why Hamill—who also plays the role of Renfield , Dracula ’ s deranged servant—wanted to reanimate the classic .
“ I ’ m interested in creating these new feminist female classics because I feel , like , these stories , whether or not we realize it , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The reason why it takes dozens and dozens of women in the # MeToo movement to take down one extremely toxic predator is because we believe in the primacy of the male narrative.
” Hamill ’ s version accordingly changes the framing of the story ; Dracula is present , of course , handsome and charming and funny , sans the bitter growl and bite , but he is notably sidelined by other characters .
The pregnant Mina , the fiancée of the novel ’ s protagonist , Jonathan Harker , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , alongside a female Van Helsing , the vampire hunter who helps our heroes defeat the monster .
Lucy , the friend of Mina ’ s who , while she entertains several suitors for marriage , is targeted by , killed , and transformed into a vampire by Dracula , is granted more self-awareness about her status : “ Our whole destinies are wrapped up in the men we marry , ” she tells Mina .
“ Once we wed , we are little better than their chattel , according to the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be absolutely sure of his character.
” Hamill doesn ’ t simply rewrite the women into the valiant heroes of the story ; she examines how the patriarchy is instilled in marriage and religion .
There can not be monsters without the establishments that gave birth to and shelter them .
In a role reversal , Dracula ’ s brides , forcefully seducing Harker , use the language that women so often hear from the mouths of men : “ It ’ s your own fault , darling—Coming in here—Dressed like that—Looking so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want it.
” During a fight scene between Dracula and Van Helsing , the count taunts her after landing a blow : “ Don ’ t cry on the job , honey ; nobody will take you seriously.
” Hamill ’ s “ Dracula ” literalizes the threats and microaggressions that women face daily , transposing the story from nineteenth-century Transylvania to the twenty-first-century office , home , street—every place where a woman may be at risk today .
When Van Helsing comes out onstage , a black woman with braids wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fingerless gloves , she ’ s an anachronism styled in a burgundy motorcycle jacket , party-crashing in Victorian England .
Direct , gruff , confident , and competent , Van Helsing is our modern woman , a fighter , come to lead Mina , still unsure of her own abilities , out of a past in which women live in fear to a future where the women stake their monsters , leaving them for dead .
Either way , Hamill makes a joke of these men , showing them weak and petty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ modern man , ” itself a kind of gag that Hamill grants the audience .
“ But you are a modern man , Jonathan Harker .
Do you really give credence to filthy superstitions ?
Do you believe that you are now in the presence of monsters ?
” Dracula asks early on , and later , “ What dark ancestral nightmares may creep into a modern man ’ s head !
” The modern man is a myth , with his genteel charm , intelligence , and sophistication ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution from an animal or a simple fool .
And he , too , can be a villain , either directly or indirectly , by being complicit in another man ’ s monstrousness .
Hamill ’ s Dracula doesn ’ t have fangs , live in a coffin , or fear crosses .
He looks like a regular guy in swanky European dress , welcoming and charming to guests .
This was important to Hamill ’ s conception of the monsters .
“ My experience of toxic men is we really expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scent one at , like , a hundred paces , ” she said .
“ But an incredible percentage of toxic men actually are really charming , very , very manipulative .
The monsters look just like us.
” “ The monsters look just like us ” —the line is echoed in the play , by Van Helsing herself .
It ’ s almost impossible not to think of Weinstein in this context , as his defense primes an argument meant to gloss over Weinstein ’ s manipulation of his position to harass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the one man is too narrow a scope of the issue .
“ I think what frustrates me the most about Harvey Weinstein is not only that he ’ s disgusting and that there are people who still defend him and question these women , who are so brave in coming forward—it ’ s the perception that he ’ s a unique monster , like Dracula .
It ’ s the perception that these guys , ‘ Oh , that ’ s one monster , ’ and I just find Harvey Weinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big iceberg.
” At the end of Hamill ’ s play , unlike in the original novel , Mina , fully pregnant and in a bloodied dress , saves the day .
Interrupting a triumphant speech by Dracula , Mina stakes him through the chest emphatically , with fury , multiple times , screaming , “ No !
No !
No !
We !
Said !
No !
” Subtle it ’ s not , but the audience at a recent performance cheered heartily , as though everyone was waiting for that fierce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied in real life , with real monsters .

The trial of Harvey Weinstein has brought a sense of dramatic climax: the fallen producer symbolizes the crest of a cultural reckoning with male abusers and predators. The testimony at the trial and the wider discourse of the #MeToo movement is the stuff of horror stories, with tell of monsters in the guise of men poised to attack. A hundred and twenty-three years ago, Bram Stoker imagined his own kind of monster in his horror novel “Dracula,” with an eponymous demon-figure who would become a fixture in literature and pop culture. In a new “Dracula” stage adaptation that premièred last month, at Classic Stage Company, however, the villain isn’t romanticized and the women aren’t in distress—and there’s no place for a man to swoop in and save the day. “I thought we’re overdue for a feminist ‘Dracula,’ ” Kate Hamill, the playwright behind the production, said. “ ‘Dracula’ is something that is very much in the cultural Zeitgeist. It’s absolutely inescapable, so I thought, O.K., so can I try to reclaim that from a feminist perspective and really explore vampires as patriarchal figures?”
This isn’t Hamill’s first rodeo; she’s become known on New York stages for her lively, funny adaptations of classic works by and about women, such as “Pride and Prejudice” and “Vanity Fair.” Her style is markedly feminist, highlighting the willful smarts of her protagonists while also flouncing any notions of self-seriousness that might cling to classic works. Her productions feature physical comedy and gags and knowing winks and asides, all of which impart old tales with a mindful, contemporary flair. Still, the Gothic, male-centric horror of “Dracula” doesn’t quite mesh with the romances and societal dramas of Jane Austen. That’s partly why Hamill—who also plays the role of Renfield, Dracula’s deranged servant—wanted to reanimate the classic. “I’m interested in creating these new feminist female classics because I feel, like, these stories, whether or not we realize it, they really shape our perceptions of the world. The reason why it takes dozens and dozens of women in the #MeToo movement to take down one extremely toxic predator is because we believe in the primacy of the male narrative.”
Hamill’s version accordingly changes the framing of the story; Dracula is present, of course, handsome and charming and funny, sans the bitter growl and bite, but he is notably sidelined by other characters. The pregnant Mina, the fiancée of the novel’s protagonist, Jonathan Harker, is the character with the most pronounced arc, alongside a female Van Helsing, the vampire hunter who helps our heroes defeat the monster. Lucy, the friend of Mina’s who, while she entertains several suitors for marriage, is targeted by, killed, and transformed into a vampire by Dracula, is granted more self-awareness about her status: “Our whole destinies are wrapped up in the men we marry,” she tells Mina. “Once we wed, we are little better than their chattel, according to the law, and I just wish I could be absolutely sure of his character.” Hamill doesn’t simply rewrite the women into the valiant heroes of the story; she examines how the patriarchy is instilled in marriage and religion. There cannot be monsters without the establishments that gave birth to and shelter them.
In a role reversal, Dracula’s brides, forcefully seducing Harker, use the language that women so often hear from the mouths of men: “It’s your own fault, darling—Coming in here—Dressed like that—Looking so good! . . . You know you want it.” During a fight scene between Dracula and Van Helsing, the count taunts her after landing a blow: “Don’t cry on the job, honey; nobody will take you seriously.” Hamill’s “Dracula” literalizes the threats and microaggressions that women face daily, transposing the story from nineteenth-century Transylvania to the twenty-first-century office, home, street—every place where a woman may be at risk today. When Van Helsing comes out onstage, a black woman with braids wearing a button-down shirt tied around her waist and fingerless gloves, she’s an anachronism styled in a burgundy motorcycle jacket, party-crashing in Victorian England. Direct, gruff, confident, and competent, Van Helsing is our modern woman, a fighter, come to lead Mina, still unsure of her own abilities, out of a past in which women live in fear to a future where the women stake their monsters, leaving them for dead.
Either way, Hamill makes a joke of these men, showing them weak and petty and fearful. The characters speak often of the “modern man,” itself a kind of gag that Hamill grants the audience. “But you are a modern man, Jonathan Harker. Do you really give credence to filthy superstitions? Do you believe that you are now in the presence of monsters?” Dracula asks early on, and later, “What dark ancestral nightmares may creep into a modern man’s head!” The modern man is a myth, with his genteel charm, intelligence, and sophistication; he is not so distant in his evolution from an animal or a simple fool. And he, too, can be a villain, either directly or indirectly, by being complicit in another man’s monstrousness. Hamill’s Dracula doesn’t have fangs, live in a coffin, or fear crosses. He looks like a regular guy in swanky European dress, welcoming and charming to guests. This was important to Hamill’s conception of the monsters. “My experience of toxic men is we really expect that you’ll really be able to scent one at, like, a hundred paces,” she said. “But an incredible percentage of toxic men actually are really charming, very, very manipulative. The monsters look just like us.” “The monsters look just like us”—the line is echoed in the play, by Van Helsing herself.
It’s almost impossible not to think of Weinstein in this context, as his defense primes an argument meant to gloss over Weinstein’s manipulation of his position to harass and assault women, but Hamill says that the one man is too narrow a scope of the issue. “I think what frustrates me the most about Harvey Weinstein is not only that he’s disgusting and that there are people who still defend him and question these women, who are so brave in coming forward—it’s the perception that he’s a unique monster, like Dracula. It’s the perception that these guys, ‘Oh, that’s one monster,’ and I just find Harvey Weinstein to be the tip of a very big iceberg.” At the end of Hamill’s play, unlike in the original novel, Mina, fully pregnant and in a bloodied dress, saves the day. Interrupting a triumphant speech by Dracula, Mina stakes him through the chest emphatically, with fury, multiple times, screaming, “No! No! No! We! Said! No!” Subtle it’s not, but the audience at a recent performance cheered heartily, as though everyone was waiting for that fierce act of punitive justice, so often denied in real life, with real monsters.


newyorker--2020-02-11--The Rules of My Apartment Building’s Laundry Room

We ’ re in the basement .
Any rules that apply upstairs don ’ t fly down here .
The management company is not involved in the maintenance of washers and dryers .
It doesn ’ t even know how the machines got down here in the first place .
If you have issues with your laundry card or with a machine , you can call that 1-400 number on the gray box by the door .
If you think that 1-400 numbers are pretend and don ’ t connect you with anyone , you are correct .
One woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while her clothes are in the wash. Other times , she will sit and wait , without listening to a podcast or meditating .
She ’ s being patient and is exhibiting something called “ self-control.
” If you return to the laundry room after your cycle has finished , you forfeit your right to remove your clothes from the machine .
The laundry room is a community space , and everyone will put their hands on everyone else ’ s underwear at some point—that ’ s just how it is , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down here .
When you return to find that someone has put your wet clothes in a laundry cart , you may feel embarrassed , but those feelings will wane over time .
Following such an incident , generally accepted dialogue goes as follows : Person who removed someone else ’ s clothes from the machine : “ Oh , sorry .
Hope that ’ s O.K.
” Even if you don ’ t feel that sorry , try to say it like you mean it .
“ Fake it till you make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mottos of this laundry room .
Another is “ Use OxiClean.
” One more is “ Leave no trace.
” And the last one I can think of is “ Carpe diem , ” because that ’ s just generally a good idea .
Also , your laundry pile is seeping out your front door .
It ’ s time .
You can talk in the laundry room .
You might talk about how long each of you has lived in the building , and that ’ s enough .
Or you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only “ smize ” —that ’ s a word coined by Tyra Banks , if you didn ’ t know .
If you find a black sock on a machine , leave it there .
Even if you realize that it is your sock , you can ’ t pick it up .
That ’ s it .
Keep better track of your stuff .
This is a shared facility and now it ’ s everyone ’ s sock .
There are two kinds of dryers in the laundry room : one industrial-sized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ load , and three small dryers that cost $ 2.50 per load .
If you call the 1-400 number , they can explain that pricing structure to you .
If you nabbed the industrial dryer before I could lunge toward it in my spandex laundry shorts , good for you .
I admire your quickness and agility and will have to do better next time .
If you move your laundry basket out of the way so that a neighbor can walk past , you need to book a flight to Burbank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a guest on “ The Ellen Show ” !
Most people don ’ t move their laundry baskets out of the way because they have their own needs in mind , but you operate differently .
Ellen heard about your good deed and wants to give you a five-thousand-dollar laundry card , so that you can do laundry as much as you want .
When a machine is having issues , you must tape a note to it , scrawled in blood .
The note should be on a three-by-five-inch piece of lined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This machine started smoking when I was done with my load .
Just a heads up.
” Ignore the cat who slinks around the laundry room wearing a tool belt and a tiny construction hat .
He is not here to fix the machines—he has other things to do .
He ’ s only passing through .
I ’ m sorry .
If you feel that these laundry machines malfunction too often and are bad , consider yourself lucky that you didn ’ t live here in the eighties .
I remember the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were no machines , just buckets .

We’re in the basement. Any rules that apply upstairs don’t fly down here. The management company is not involved in the maintenance of washers and dryers. It doesn’t even know how the machines got down here in the first place.
If you have issues with your laundry card or with a machine, you can call that 1-400 number on the gray box by the door. If you think that 1-400 numbers are pretend and don’t connect you with anyone, you are correct.
One woman will sometimes crochet in the laundry room while her clothes are in the wash. Other times, she will sit and wait, without listening to a podcast or meditating. She’s being patient and is exhibiting something called “self-control.”
If you return to the laundry room after your cycle has finished, you forfeit your right to remove your clothes from the machine. The laundry room is a community space, and everyone will put their hands on everyone else’s underwear at some point—that’s just how it is, and how we’ve always done things down here. When you return to find that someone has put your wet clothes in a laundry cart, you may feel embarrassed, but those feelings will wane over time.
Following such an incident, generally accepted dialogue goes as follows:
Person who removed someone else’s clothes from the machine: “Oh, sorry. Hope that’s O.K.”
Person whose clothing was removed: “Oh, that’s totally fine. I’m sorry.”
Even if you don’t feel that sorry, try to say it like you mean it. “Fake it till you make it” is one of the many mottos of this laundry room. Another is “Use OxiClean.” One more is “Leave no trace.” And the last one I can think of is “Carpe diem,” because that’s just generally a good idea. Also, your laundry pile is seeping out your front door. It’s time.
You can talk in the laundry room. You might talk about how long each of you has lived in the building, and that’s enough. Or you could give a closed-lip smile, or maybe only “smize”—that’s a word coined by Tyra Banks, if you didn’t know.
If you find a black sock on a machine, leave it there. Even if you realize that it is your sock, you can’t pick it up. That’s it. Keep better track of your stuff. This is a shared facility and now it’s everyone’s sock.
There are two kinds of dryers in the laundry room: one industrial-sized dryer that costs only $1.50 per load, and three small dryers that cost $2.50 per load. If you call the 1-400 number, they can explain that pricing structure to you.
If you nabbed the industrial dryer before I could lunge toward it in my spandex laundry shorts, good for you. I admire your quickness and agility and will have to do better next time.
If you move your laundry basket out of the way so that a neighbor can walk past, you need to book a flight to Burbank, because you’re going to be a guest on “The Ellen Show”! Most people don’t move their laundry baskets out of the way because they have their own needs in mind, but you operate differently. Ellen heard about your good deed and wants to give you a five-thousand-dollar laundry card, so that you can do laundry as much as you want.
When a machine is having issues, you must tape a note to it, scrawled in blood. The note should be on a three-by-five-inch piece of lined paper and say something like, “This machine started smoking when I was done with my load. Just a heads up.”
Ignore the cat who slinks around the laundry room wearing a tool belt and a tiny construction hat. He is not here to fix the machines—he has other things to do. He’s only passing through. I’m sorry.
If you feel that these laundry machines malfunction too often and are bad, consider yourself lucky that you didn’t live here in the eighties. I remember the old machines. I even remember when there were no machines, just buckets.