That strongly suggests that Strzok's testimony was not consistent with the conspiracy theories about the FBI leveled by Trump's allies. If the transcript helped them, they would release it. https://t.co/CwE4rb9zMc
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) July 3, 2018
And, as so often, there is a danger when dealing with general trends in overlooking specifics. The reason for the early exits of Germany and Spain are manifold, and only partly related to tactics. Joachim Löw admitted his side had been arrogant and had perhaps not seen the warning signs. Perhaps he selected too many established names on reputation rather than recent form. The squad seems to have been riven by cliques.Löw himself was perhaps found out: at the last World Cup he struggled to get the balance right between attack and defence and was bailed out by Miroslav Klose, who scored a vital goal against Ghana before offering a focal point to the forward line from the quarter-final on. Here, without Klose, or an in-form Thomas Müller, there was no edge to Germany's attack and so despite 65.3% possession over the group stage, their threat was limited. Combine that with their issues in checking opposing counterattacks - damningly highlighted in pre-tournament friendlies - and the only outcome can be disappointment.It's natural, of course, that the longer a mode of play exists, the more strategies spring up to counter it. Xavi observed two years ago that Spain often struggled against a 3-5-2 (such as Chile deployed against them in 2014 and Italy in 2016) because it is difficult to press high against a team with five passing outlets at the back, particularly if they have two centre-forwards to occupy the central defenders. That was the route Russia's coach, Stanislav Cherchesov, took, and it worked - but Spain were also guilty of wastefulness in midfield in a way their champion sides were not.
The only question is whether the PSA is funded by the Watermelon Growers or the Fireworks Vendor Association...#Fireworks are illegal in the City of Los Angeles and even small ones can cause a lot of damage.
— Mayor Eric Garcetti (@MayorOfLA) July 2, 2018
This watermelon was completely destroyed by a firework the size of a stick of gum.
🎆 This #FourthOfJuly be safe, find a professional show near you: https://t.co/gow9utbD5K pic.twitter.com/KHqrJZDVba
Join host Roger Bennett of Men in Blazers for this story of the U.S. men's soccer team that swaggered onto the international stage and set out to win the 1998 World Cup in France. When they arrived, they faced only one serious opponent: themselves. WNYC Studios is a listener-supported producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.
Statcast™ is changing the way we watch baseball, and we're only beginning to figure out how it will revolutionize the game. Mike Petriello, Matt Meyers and special guests discuss what this groundbreaking technology is teaching us.Be sure to follow @Statcast on Twitter for the best daily video clips featuring this new technology!Listen to or download individual episodes below, subscribe via iTunes or use your RSS reader so you never miss a single episode.
When Chicagoan Chance the Rapper delivered his verse on "Ultralight Beam," the opening song from Kanye West's The Life of Pablo, there was a lot going on--sly homage was being paid to West; rappers were being put on notice ("This is my part/Nobody else speak"); and, most importantly, Chance was encapsulating his past, asserting his present, and telegraphing his future. He was finally positioning himself as a rapper to be reckoned with from a mainstream podium, but he was also delving deep into Christian ideology, with allusions to Noah's Ark and Lot's wife, with his "foot on the Devil's neck 'til it drifted Pangaea."That verse rolled out the red carpet for Kanye's long-awaited album, but it doubled as an announcement of Chance's new Coloring Book (then given the working title Chance 3), which may very well be the most eagerly-anticipated hip-hop project this year that doesn't come attached to an actual record label. West billed his album as "a gospel album with a whole lot of cursing on it," but The Life of Pablo wasn't that; it was a rap album with some gospel overtures. Coloring Book, however, fits the billing, packing in so much gospel verve that it sounds like Hezekiah Walker & the Love Fellowship Crusade Choir are going to drop into half the tracks and recite 1 Timothy 4:12 in chorale. Instead, we get Kirk Franklin promising to lead us into the Promised Land, alongside appearances by demonstrated materialistic heathens like 2 Chainz, Lil Wayne, Young Thug, and Future--and the result is an uplifting mix that even an atheist can catch the Spirit to.
The album's focus is, rightfully, "Friends," a collaboration with Justin Vernon of Bon Iver and Kanye West. It's a deeply affecting, mellow slice of alternative R&B, gliding along on a placid sea of finger snaps and interlocking vocal harmonies by all three artists, like some impossibly cool barbershop trio. When Starlite sings, "We could be friends/Just put your head on my shoulders," it's lusher than velvet. It sounds more like a lovesick supplication than a call for restraint. Francis and the Lights have been compared to Peter Gabriel before, but nowhere has this been more apparent as "May I Have This Dance," a song that truly could be added to a reissue of So without anyone batting an eyelid. Its subtle Afro-pop drumbeat and jubilant chorale of lyrics about reclaiming lost love are so evocative of mid-'80s art pop that it defiantly stands out as an example of the kind of diversity Farewell, Starlite! could desperately use more of.
Developed for television by Eric Overmyer from novels by Michael Connelly, the show accommodates the modern serial drama's requirements for psychology and back story. Bosch's daughter and ex-wife are significant characters, and the unsolved murder of his mother (with its echoes of the Black Dahlia case) continues to haunt him in Season 4. (A fifth season has already been ordered.)But the soul of the series is procedural crime-solving, and that's more than ever the case in the new season, which focuses on the murder of an African-American lawyer who was about to go to court with a brutality case against the Los Angeles Police Department. [...]Anchoring it all is the deliberate, heavy quietude of Titus Welliver's performance as Bosch, communicating untold skepticism and disdain through an arched eyebrow or a downturned lip. Mr. Welliver can suggest an entire personality in the way he stares at a whiteboard or silently chooses which chair to sit in, and the show has matched him with other nonhistrionic actors like Jamie Hector (as his partner), Sarah Clarke (his former wife) and Madison Lintz (his daughter).The unhurried pace of "Bosch" can sometimes slow to a crawl, the writing can be workmanlike and the secondary story lines involving Bosch's family or Los Angeles politics can be thin. But when it errs, it errs on the side of literalness rather than falseness, of plainness rather than pretension. The show doesn't require patience so much as relaxation. Surrender to its hard-boiled charms, and it will treat you right.
[F]ocusing on America's bad outcomes misses the point. A nation that governs itself owns its own mistakes -- and has the ability to rectify them. We create the laws under which we are governed, and when we don't like the outcomes, our elected officials have the ability to correct them. Our Constitution has been amended 18 times since its initial ratification to deal with the worst of the outcomes, including slavery, and even once to correct an earlier amendment prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol.Our Independence Day gave us the ability to set our own course, for better or worse. No doubt the worse outcomes of those decisions, and the slow process of correcting them, made our forefathers despair at times, too. The long string of injustices seen in our history belong to the people who governed at that time and plagued the people they served, but we remember them now to remind us of the responsibility we have to govern ourselves wisely and judiciously in the future. The successes and failures of self-governance provide the perspective necessary to keep a sharp check on the use of power, lest we create the disconnect that created the need for the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Sundering governance from accountability is the surest and the shortest way to arrive at such a crisis.Freedom and self-governance may not be pretty, but it is the antidote for the ills of every other form of government.
"The Government has uncovered no evidence that your client violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems," prosecutors noted in the plea agreement signed Tuesday."Particularly, the Government has found no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members' offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information," it said.The plea deal said the government had conducted "a thorough investigation of those allegations. Including interviewing approximately 40 witnesses."The investigation was led by Trump-nominated U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, according to the Post.Awan's attorney said in a statement that his client had been the target of "political persecution.""There has never been any missing server, smashed hard drives, blackmailed members of Congress, or breach of classified information," he said in the statement, according to the Post. "Yet Fox News and its media children continued to peddle a story in perfect coordination with House Republicans and the President."
Now rentable on iTunes, Amazon and other VOD platforms for $5.99, "The Last Witness" is a narrative film about the Katyn massacre of 1940. This joint Polish-British production is well worth seeing both for its dramatic power and for its probing examination of how England served Stalin's Great Russian chauvinism by covering up the massacre that left 22,000 elite members of the military, academy, church and legal professions secretly buried in the forest near Smolensk, even after the Cold War had begun. [...]Wajda's film was made from the perspective of a Polish officer eventually killed in Katyn while "The Last Witness", set in 1946, is from that of a British journalist named Stephen Underwood (Alex Pettyfer) who is puzzled by the suicide epidemic of Poles who have ended up in displaced persons camps in England after the war has ended. This leads Underwood to begin asking questions among the interned men, including one who turns out to be a Russian peasant who ended up witnessing the executions. Appalled by the killings, he assumed the identity of a Pole named Michael Loboda (Robert Wieckiewicz) and fled to England where he becomes the eponymous "last witness".Sensing that Loboda is hiding something, Underwood uses his access to the camp (his brother is an officer there) and purloins a journal that Loboda salvaged from a mass grave in Katyn. It is filled with details about the killings, the same device Wajda used in "Katyn". Letters that the doomed Polish officer wrote to his wife end up being used to reconstruct war crimes. Both films use archival footage of disinterred corpses to lend the realism needed to remind an audience of the needless brutality Stalin was capable of.Underwood's investigative reporting leads the forces of reaction in England to try silencing both the reporter and Loboda by any means necessary. Paul Szambowski's screenplay co-written with director Piotr Szkopiak sustains considerable tension as the noose tightens around both men in a fashion that evokes a John le Carré film. The higher up you get in the British state and military, the more you run into rationales for officialdom's malfeasance. The film has a noir aesthetic that matches well to the immediate post-war malaise, capturing the same mood as Orson Welles's "The Third Man".While focused on a distant period, the filmmakers obviously hope to reflect on anti-Polish xenophobia present now in England. When Underwood is having a drink in a pub, he spots Loboda for the first time standing at the bar trying to get his mind off Katyn and displacement by sipping quietly on a beer. When his Slavic accent is noticed by an Englishman standing close by, he is told to go back where he came from and to stop stealing their jobs.While the Soviet government is obviously determined to keep its responsibility for Katyn a secret by continuing to put the blame on the defeated Nazi state, the British Labour Government comes in a close second.
According to sources cited by one of Reagan's biographers, in 1938 the handsome young actor from Illinois was briefly attracted to Hollywood's Red flame. It seems that in a moment of rash idealism, Reagan attempted to become a member of the Communist Party, only to be turned down as unreliable by the local party boss. The party evidently preferred to keep the callow enthusiast on the outside, as a potentially useful "friend."[5]Whatever the accuracy of this story (which Reagan later denied), nearly everyone who knew him in the late 1930s and early 1940s agreed that his consuming offscreen passion was politics and that his political stance was "very liberal."[6] An omnivorous reader with a photographic memory, Reagan effortlessly stored up in his head an amazing array of statistics and knowledge with which he cheerfully bombarded anyone who would listen. A pro-Communist filmmaker who worked closely with him during World War II later remarked that Reagan "had more knowledge of political history than any other actor I'd ever met."[7] Genial but zealous, the FDR loyalist liked nothing better than to debate politics by the hour with conservative Republican friends, each trying in vain to convert the other to his position. Curiously, two of these early right-wing sparring partners--the actor George Murphy and the California businessman Justin Dart--would help to launch Reagan's career in politics, as a conservative, twenty years later.But in the early 1940s this denouement was nowhere in sight. After the United States entered World War II, Reagan eventually found himself in uniform. For most of the war, he served in California, where he rose to captain in the First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces. Here he performed administrative tasks and helped to prepare military training films. During this period, the no-enemies-on-the-left spirit of Popular Front liberalism--temporarily eclipsed by the notorious Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939--had returned in force, and Reagan again felt its gravitational pull. With the United States and the Soviet Union allied in war against Nazi Germany, it was not surprising that in 1943 he joined the Hollywood Democratic Committee, a Popular Front-style mélange of liberals and hard leftists devoted to encouraging President Roosevelt's conciliatory policy toward Stalinist Russia. The committee's executive director was a member of the Communist Party.In 1944 Reagan went to a Roosevelt reelection rally in Hollywood. During the war, he also showed interest in attending what a far-left Army colleague later described as "left-wing functions."[8] Whether he actually did so in any serious way is unclear. Most likely his few political gestures in this period betokened little more than a desire to stay in touch with like-minded liberals while waiting for the war to end--at which time he could again release his crusading and proselytizing impulses.Years later, reflecting upon his wartime experience in uniform, Reagan wrote that it had led to "the first crack in my staunch liberalism." While in the Army, he had been obliged to deal with the bureaucratic inanities and "empire building" of the Civil Service.[9] Nevertheless, when Reagan returned to civilian life (and a full-time Hollywood acting career) in 1945, he was, by his own admission, a "near-hopeless hemophilic liberal" and "a New Dealer to the core."[10]I thought government could solve all our problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the war. I didn't trust big business. I thought government, not private companies, should own our big public utilities; if there wasn't enough housing to shelter the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better medical care, the answer was socialized medicine.[11]Determined to do his part for "the regeneration of the world,"[12] Reagan excitedly plunged into a frenzy of left-wing activism, including contacts with at least five organizations later accused of being Communist fronts.[13] On December 10, 1945, he read aloud an anti-nuclear poem at a formal dinner where other speakers denounced nationalism and capitalism and demanded international control of nuclear weapons. The popular movie star joined and quickly became a "large wheel" in the aggressively liberal American Veterans Committee (AVC), whose California ranks included more than a few Communists and fellow travelers. He joined the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions (HICCASP), the Popular Front-style successor to the Hollywood Democratic Committee. He signed up with the World Federalists, whose policy goals included a world government. He even put his name on a petition by an outfit called the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, demanding that the United States abandon China's anti-Communist leader Chiang Kai-shek (who was then fighting a civil war against the Chinese Communists). The petition was soon printed in the Communist Party's West Coast newspaper.Above all, in the first months after the war Reagan went on a speaking spree around Hollywood, decrying what he saw as the rise of "neofascism" in the United States. It is little wonder that during these heady months he was "a favorite of the Hollywood Communists." "I was their boy," he ruefully admitted a few years later.[14]Otto von Bismarck once reputedly remarked: "Fools say they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others' experience." In early 1946 Ronald Reagan was neither a fool nor a Communist sympathizer. But like many Roosevelt Democrats at the time, he was, by his later account, an innocent who was "not sharp about Communism" and the true nature of the Soviet despotism.[15] He was a non-Communist, not yet an anti-Communist. He was about to learn the political facts of life the hard way.Reagan's slow political awakening took place amid a tectonic shift beneath the landscape of the American left. The war against Nazi Germany had not quite ended in 1945 when Joseph Stalin laid down a new line for obedient Communists worldwide: with Hitlerism all but destroyed, a new enemy had arisen--American imperialism--and Communists must prepare to struggle against it. The halcyon era of the prewar and wartime Popular Front, in which "progressives" could happily unite against fascism, was over. In its place Stalin had inaugurated a new struggle--the Cold War--in which the focus of evil for Communists everywhere would be Washington, D.C. No longer could the American comrades sing hosannas to Franklin Roosevelt and to Soviet-American friendship. Under direct orders from the Kremlin, they must now confront the "reactionary," "warmongering" administration of Harry Truman. Up to now the American Communist Party had been able to portray itself as a patriotic part of the grand coalition against Hitler. Now, in the quickening Cold War, the Party was forced to show what it really was: a witting tool and agent of a totalitarian, foreign power.Meanwhile Reagan had begun orating around Hollywood under the auspices of the American Veterans Committee about the alleged threat of domestic "neofascism." His "hand-picked" audiences loved it. But then, one evening in the spring of 1946, upon the advice of his minister, the liberal celebrity altered the conclusion of his speech. After first denouncing fascism to the usual "riotous applause," he added a new closing line: "I've talked about the continuing threat of fascism in the postwar world, but there's another 'ism,' Communism, and if I ever find evidence that Communism represents a threat to all that we believe in and stand for, I'll speak just as harshly against Communism as I have against fascism." The audience reaction, in Reagan's word, was "ghastly": not a single person applauded as he left the stage. He was stunned.[16] His turn to the right, it may be said, commenced that very night.A few weeks later, on July 2, his disillusionment deepened when he attended his first meeting as a member of HICCASP's executive council, to which he had recently been appointed. HICCASP was already beset by accusations that it was Communist-controlled. To allay these concerns, James Roosevelt (a son of FDR) proposed at the meeting that the council issue a statement repudiating Communism. Instantly howls of outrage burst forth from John Howard Lawson (the "dean" of Hollywood's Communists) and other radicals in the room. When Reagan, the newcomer, rose in support of Roosevelt's proposal, he was greeted by shouts of "Fascist," "Red-baiter," and "capitalist scum," among other vituperative epithets of the Communist lexicon. The verbal brawl ended in the appointment of a committee of the two factions to draft an acceptable policy statement. It also ended in Reagan's joining the anti-radicals for a strategy session later that evening.A few nights later, Reagan and the non-Communists on the drafting committee met with their leftist colleagues. Reagan's side offered a draft resolution (partly written by Reagan himself) ending with these words: "We [the executive council of HICCASP] reaffirm our belief in free enterprise and the democratic system and repudiate Communism as desirable for the United States." Once again pandemonium erupted. Shaking his finger under Reagan's nose, Lawson shouted that HICCASP would never adopt such a statement. "Let's let the whole membership decide by secret ballot," Reagan replied; this matter "shouldn't be left to the board of directors." Lawson retorted that the membership "isn't politically sophisticated enough to make this decision." Reagan never forgot the chilling, authoritarian condescension of those words.The drafting committee eventually thrashed out a compromise resolution that ducked the question of Communism and watered down the reference to free enterprise. The HICCASP's executive council adopted this version with amendments a few days later. When Reagan's ally Olivia de Havilland then submitted the more anti-Communist resolution to the council's executive committee, it received exactly one vote: her own. A few weeks later HICCASP's executive council declared that it had no "affiliation" with any political party, including the Communists. For Reagan and many other Hollywood liberals, this anemic statement was a case of "too little, too late." In the aftermath of the stormy meetings in early July, he and many other prominent liberals resigned. To Reagan, HICCASP's refusal to unequivocally affirm democracy and repudiate Communism was "all the proof we needed" that the organization had indeed become a Communist front, "hiding behind a few well-intentioned Hollywood celebrities to give it credibility." Only weeks before, he had been inclined to dismiss talk of Communist infiltration and manipulation as "Red-baiting" and "Republican propaganda." No more. He had discerned, as he later put it, "the seamy side of liberalism. Too many patches on the progressive coat were of a color I didn't personally care for."[17]Reagan's eye-opening entanglement with Communist front groups was only a prologue to the political education he was about to receive in the workplace.
The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) pursued two main themes in his work, one now familiar, even commonplace in modernity, the other still under-appreciated, often ignored. The familiar Nietzsche is the "existentialist", who diagnoses the most profound cultural fact about modernity: "the death of God", or more exactly, the collapse of the possibility of reasonable belief in God. Belief in God - in transcendent meaning or purpose, dictated by a supernatural being - is now incredible, usurped by naturalistic explanations of the evolution of species, the behaviour of matter in motion, the unconscious causes of human behaviours and attitudes, indeed, by explanations of how such a bizarre belief arose in the first place. But without God or transcendent purpose, how can we withstand the terrible truths about our existence, namely, its inevitable suffering and disappointment, followed by death and the abyss of nothingness?Nietzsche the "existentialist" exists in tandem with an "illiberal" Nietzsche, one who sees the collapse of theism and divine teleology as tied fundamentally to the untenability of the entire moral world view of post-Christian modernity. If there is no God who deems each human to be of equal worth or possessed with an immortal soul beloved by God, then why think we all deserve equal moral consideration? And what if, as Nietzsche argues, a morality of equality - and altruism and pity for suffering - were, in fact, an obstacle to human excellence? What if being a "moral" person makes it impossible to be Beethoven? Nietzsche's conclusion is clear: if moral equality is an obstacle to human excellence, then so much the worse for moral equality. This is the less familiar and often shockingly anti-egalitarian Nietzsche.
What interested him was not the probability of results given different causes (like the probability of five heads given different kinds of coin). Rather he wanted to know about the "inverse probability" of the causes given the results. When we observe some evidence, what's the likelihood of its different possible causes? Some commentators have conjectured that Bayes interest in this issue was prompted by David Hume's sceptical argument in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) that reports of miracles are more likely to stem from inventive witnesses than the actions of a benign deity. Be that as it may, Bayes's article was the first serious attempt to apply mathematics to the problem of "inverse probabilities".Bayes's paper analyses a messy problem involving billiard balls and their positions on a table. But his basic idea can be explained easily enough. Go back to the coins. If five tosses yield five heads in a row, then how likely is it that the coin is fair rather than biased? Well, how long is a piece of string? In the abstract, there's no good answer to the question. Without some idea of the prevalence of biased coins, five heads doesn't really tell us anything. Maybe we're spinning a dodgy coin, or perhaps we just got lucky with a fair one. Who knows?What Bayes saw, however, was that in certain cases the problem is tractable. Suppose you know that your coin comes from a minting machine that randomly produces one 75 per cent heads-biased coin for every nine fair coins. Now the inverse probabilities can be pinned down. Since five heads is about eight times more likely on a biased than a fair coin, we'll get five heads from a biased coin eight times for every nine times we get it from a fair one. So, if you do see five heads in a row, you can conclude that the probability of that coin being biased is nearly a half. By the same reasoning, if you see ten heads in a row, you can be about 87 per cent sure the coin is biased. And in general, given any observed sequence of results, you can work out the probability of the coin being fair or biased.Most people who have heard of Thomas Bayes associate him primarily with "Bayes's theorem". This states that the probability of A given B equals the probability of B given A, times the probability of A, divided by the probability of B. So, in our case, Prob(biased coin/five heads) = Prob(five heads/biased coin) x Prob(biased coin) / Prob(five heads).As it happens, this "theorem" is a trivial bit of probability arithmetic. (It falls straight out of the definition of Prob(A/B) as Prob(A&B) / P(B).) Because of this, many dismiss Bayes as a minor figure who has done well to have the contemporary revolution in statistical theory named after him. But this does a disservice to Bayes. The focus of his paper is not his theorem, which appears only in passing, but the logic of learning from evidence.What Bayes saw clearly was that, in any case where you can compute Prob(A/B), this quantity provides a recipe for adjusting your confidence in A when you learn B. We start off thinking there's a one-in-ten chance of a biased coin but, once we observe five heads, we switch to thinking it's an even chance. Bayes's "theorem" is helpful because it shows that evidence supports a theory to the extent the theory makes that evidence likely - five heads support biasedness because biasedness makes five heads more likely. But Bayes's more fundamental insight was to see how scientific methodology can be placed on a principled footing. At bottom, science is nothing if not the progressive assessment of theories by evidence. [...]Science is currently said to be suffering a "replicability crisis". Over the last few years a worrying number of widely accepted findings in psychology, medicine and other disciplines have failed to be confirmed by repetitions of the original experiments. Well-known psychological results that have proved hard to reproduce include the claim that new-born babies imitate their mothers' facial expressions and that will power is a limited resource that becomes depleted through use. In medicine, the drug companies Bayer and Amgen, frustrated by the slow progress of drug development, discovered that more than three-quarters of the basic science studies they were relying on didn't stand up when repeated. When the journal Nature polled 1,500 scientists in 2016, 70 per cent said they had failed to reproduce another scientist's results.This crisis of reproducibility has occasioned much wringing of hands. The finger has been pointed at badly designed experiments, not to mention occasional mutterings about rigged data. But the only real surprise is that the problem has taken so long to emerge. The statistical establishment has been reluctant to concede the point, but failures of replication are nothing but the pigeons of significance testing coming home to roost.
Cicero has a lot to thank Robert Harris for. Many of us have struggled to make the Roman orator interesting for a modern audience. But I fear that my worthy PhD thesis ('The State Religion in the Late Roman Republic: a study based on the works of Cicero") have had far less effect on Cicero's modern fame than Harris's trilogy, Imperium, Conspiracy and Lustrum, which have given us back a funny, enterprising, self-ironic and clever Roman politician (with a career ending, as they all do (I'm quoting E. Powell here, who knew) in failure. In Cicero's case, that meant decapitation.I hadn't got to see the RSC adaptation of the trilogy at Stratford, but did manage the full 7 hours worth on Saturday at the Gielgud theatre in London: a fantastically acted, theatrical box-set. It was a wonderful recreation of the wonderful Harris recreation of Cicero's career (though I still slightly regret that the first -- and my favourite -- part of the trilogy is skipped over in the interests, I guess, of time). First of all it was engagingly funny -- which is totally apt for Cicero and his testimony. True, what we witness is the bloody breakdown of the Roman Republic and the awful violence of civil war. But Harris (and his adaptor Mike Poulton) get inside the skin of Cicero's own wit here. They remind us that, though he has tended to be treated in mainstream modern scholarship as a rather pompous stuffed shirt, his ancient reputation was as the funniest man ever. What was his problem? asked Plutarch. Simple, he could never keep a joke in. And he ended up in Pompey's camp in the war against Caesar making himself horribly unpopular by going round cracking gags. So, for all the tragedy, this is a tremendously Ciceronian performance.
A perusal of the The Federalist might give an interested Frenchman an understanding of our governmental institutions. But true affection for our Constitution can come only from living under the government it structures, participating in the politics it makes possible, and exercising the freedoms it secures. In a word, we love our country because she is, in some important sense, ours.But our love for America should not be limited to this. Patriotic affection ought to elicit a further desire to protect and promote America's goodness. Americans today are the beneficiaries of those who pledged their lives and sacred honor to form this country, those who spent their lives in the struggle to keep it, and those who have worked tirelessly to shape it into a more perfect union. We have many blessings to be grateful for, and the appropriate product of our gratitude is a desire to promote these blessings.This desire to protect and promote our country's goodness is properly called patriotism, but it is patriotism of a particular kind. When our country struggles or our government errs, patriotism arouses us to safeguard the things we love. Our love for our country is originally founded on all the countless lovely things about her. But our love for America does not rest on its remaining lovely. If it did, it would be no love at all. Such a false patriotism is, as C.S. Lewis once put it, "like loving your children only if they're good, your wife only while she keeps her looks, your husband only so long as he is famous and successful."Because true patriotism appreciates America's charms but refuses to esteem her faults, it does not cause us to blindly endorse everything our country is and has been. It will not even permit us to be unmoved by our country's sins. We promote our country's goodness both by celebrating its virtues and by identifying--and remedying--its vices. This patriotism will not allow us to mark as noble what is ignoble. It compels us to cherish those goods that ought to be cherished and to remedy those evils that ought to be remedied.This patriotism thus aims to protect and promote America's goodness, not her government. It entails no particular commitment to, or satisfaction with, the ruling authority of the state. On the contrary, it will sometimes require criticizing our government when it fails to promote and protect what is good about America. We ought to have affection for the justice and peace that our government secures, and our love for our country ought to compel us to promote these blessings--including by holding our government to account. An unpatriotic heart is thus characterized not by agitation, but by apathy.
This episode may have seeded the announcement that Gawande is to be chief executive of a nonprofit venture funded jointly by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase & Co., formed to address the health of their combined million-plus workforce."I have devoted my public health career to building scalable solutions for better health care delivery," Gawande says. "Now I have the backing of these remarkable organizations to pursue this mission with even greater impact.... This work will take time but must be done. The system is broken, and better is possible."Other than boosting employee health and cutting costs, the prescription for the as-yet-unnamed Boston venture is unclear. But the bloated $3 trillion U.S. health care industry is seen as ripe for the scalpel. Gawande -- who has written four best-selling books on medicine, founded projects to improve health in developing countries and received a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award -- will now have a generously funded test bed to think differently. The involvement of Amazon suggests technological disruption; bricks-and-mortar hospitals seem, literally, an outmoded operating system in a digitized world.It is an unexpected direction for the doctor who was tipped to be surgeon general in a Hillary Clinton administration. "I don't think it's excessive to call him our most distinguished living doctor," says Andrew Franklin, a friend and the founder of Profile Books, which publishes Gawande's works in the U.K."He has a real sense of the power of medicine to improve the world. And he's become fantastically successful without becoming obnoxious. I don't have many heroes, but Atul is one of them," Franklin says.Gawande was born in 1965 in New York City -- the family later moved to rural Ohio -- to immigrant Indian doctors: His father, Atmaram, was a noted urologist, his mother, Sushila, a pediatrician. The couple supported philanthropic causes in the U.S. and India...
This is the moment in Sara's story that poses a fundamental question for everyone living in the era of modern medicine: What do we want Sara and her doctors to do now? Or, to put it another way, if you were the one who had metastatic cancer--or, for that matter, a similarly advanced case of emphysema or congestive heart failure--what would you want your doctors to do?The issue has become pressing, in recent years, for reasons of expense. The soaring cost of health care is the greatest threat to the country's long-term solvency, and the terminally ill account for a lot of it. Twenty-five per cent of all Medicare spending is for the five per cent of patients who are in their final year of life, and most of that money goes for care in their last couple of months which is of little apparent benefit.Spending on a disease like cancer tends to follow a particular pattern. There are high initial costs as the cancer is treated, and then, if all goes well, these costs taper off. Medical spending for a breast-cancer survivor, for instance, averaged an estimated fifty-four thousand dollars in 2003, the vast majority of it for the initial diagnostic testing, surgery, and, where necessary, radiation and chemotherapy. For a patient with a fatal version of the disease, though, the cost curve is U-shaped, rising again toward the end--to an average of sixty-three thousand dollars during the last six months of life with an incurable breast cancer. Our medical system is excellent at trying to stave off death with eight-thousand-dollar-a-month chemotherapy, three-thousand-dollar-a-day intensive care, five-thousand-dollar-an-hour surgery. But, ultimately, death comes, and no one is good at knowing when to stop.The subject seems to reach national awareness mainly as a question of who should "win" when the expensive decisions are made: the insurers and the taxpayers footing the bill or the patient battling for his or her life. Budget hawks urge us to face the fact that we can't afford everything. Demagogues shout about rationing and death panels. Market purists blame the existence of insurance: if patients and families paid the bills themselves, those expensive therapies would all come down in price. But they're debating the wrong question. The failure of our system of medical care for people facing the end of their life runs much deeper. To see this, you have to get close enough to grapple with the way decisions about care are actually made.Recently, while seeing a patient in an intensive-care unit at my hospital, I stopped to talk with the critical-care physician on duty, someone I'd known since college. "I'm running a warehouse for the dying," she said bleakly. Out of the ten patients in her unit, she said, only two were likely to leave the hospital for any length of time. More typical was an almost eighty-year-old woman at the end of her life, with irreversible congestive heart failure, who was in the I.C.U. for the second time in three weeks, drugged to oblivion and tubed in most natural orifices and a few artificial ones. Or the seventy-year-old with a cancer that had metastasized to her lungs and bone, and a fungal pneumonia that arises only in the final phase of the illness. She had chosen to forgo treatment, but her oncologist pushed her to change her mind, and she was put on a ventilator and antibiotics. Another woman, in her eighties, with end-stage respiratory and kidney failure, had been in the unit for two weeks. Her husband had died after a long illness, with a feeding tube and a tracheotomy, and she had mentioned that she didn't want to die that way. But her children couldn't let her go, and asked to proceed with the placement of various devices: a permanent tracheotomy, a feeding tube, and a dialysis catheter. So now she just lay there tethered to her pumps, drifting in and out of consciousness.Almost all these patients had known, for some time, that they had a terminal condition. Yet they--along with their families and doctors--were unprepared for the final stage. "We are having more conversation now about what patients want for the end of their life, by far, than they have had in all their lives to this point," my friend said. "The problem is that's way too late." In 2008, the national Coping with Cancer project published a study showing that terminally ill cancer patients who were put on a mechanical ventilator, given electrical defibrillation or chest compressions, or admitted, near death, to intensive care had a substantially worse quality of life in their last week than those who received no such interventions. And, six months after their death, their caregivers were three times as likely to suffer major depression. Spending one's final days in an I.C.U. because of terminal illness is for most people a kind of failure. You lie on a ventilator, your every organ shutting down, your mind teetering on delirium and permanently beyond realizing that you will never leave this borrowed, fluorescent place. The end comes with no chance for you to have said goodbye or "It's O.K." or "I'm sorry" or "I love you."People have concerns besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys of patients with terminal illness find that their top priorities include, in addition to avoiding suffering, being with family, having the touch of others, being mentally aware, and not becoming a burden to others. Our system of technological medical care has utterly failed to meet these needs, and the cost of this failure is measured in far more than dollars. The hard question we face, then, is not how we can afford this system's expense. It is how we can build a health-care system that will actually help dying patients achieve what's most important to them at the end of their lives.
It's a glimpse of the future, where what used to be jobs are now experiences you enjoy on vacation.WIGTOWN, Scotland -- Isak Dinesen had a farm in Africa. Recently, if only for a day, I had a bookstore in Scotland.It wasn't easy to get to Wigtown, in the remote Dumfries and Galloway region of Scotland, in time for my shift. Though the village is only a two-hour drive from Glasgow, a GPS sent me through 33 miles of the desolately beautiful Galloway Forest Park on a single-track road that rattled the nerves.The nerve rattling was compounded because I was driving on the "wrong" side of the road and with a stick shift installed on my left rather than my right. This felt like trying to use a mortar and pestle with my good arm tied behind my back. While in oncoming traffic.Ian Butler, the proprietor of the Open Book for a week earlier in June, opening the store for business.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York TimesIt is worth getting to Wigtown, population 1,000, however. It is lush and green and smells of the nearby sea. It is Scotland's national book town, its Hay-on-Wye. With a dozen used bookstores tucked into its small downtown, it is a literary traveler's Elysium.Best of all, Wigtown offers a literary experience unlike any other I'm aware of. In town there is a good used bookstore called the Open Book, with an apartment up above, that's rentable by the week. Once you move in, the shop is yours to run as you see fit.I was handed the keys and a cash box. I was told I could reshelve and redecorate. I could invite Elena Ferrante and Thomas Pynchon to speak, and Sly Stone to play, if I could find them.The Open Book is run by a nonprofit group. It has touched a chord with so many people, from every continent, that it's booked through 2021, which is as far as Airbnb will take reservations.