Latest news with #TheNewYorker
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Globe and Mail
Look Ma, No Hands is a celebration of writing and a sensitive exploration of chronic pain
The first editorial cartoon that ever made me cackle felt like a personal attack. The graphic showed two black lines dressed in cowboy boots and 10-gallon hats, facing each other as if poised to draw pistols. A piece of paper – in my mind, a work in progress of some sort, perhaps an essay or newspaper column – rested beneath them. The italicized caption was perfect: 'This paragraph ain't big enough for this many em dashes.' Any editor of mine will confirm: I have an em-dash problem. As such, I've never hit 'purchase' on a product so quickly – a framed print of that cartoon sits proudly on my writing desk at home. Journalist and cartoonist Gabrielle Drolet, whose drawings for The Globe and Mail, The New Yorker and beyond often poke fun at the writing process, drew that genius em-dash portrait. Perhaps we share an affinity for over-using that particular piece of punctuation. But you wouldn't know Drolet had any trouble writing at all from her memoir, Look Ma, No Hands, which, through comics, stories and a heavy handful of aloof humour, details her experience of coming of age alongside her chronic pain. For the last decade or so, Drolet has bounced between Canadian cities, building her career as a writer and artist while jousting a herniated disc in her spine. While manageable with physical therapy and lifestyle changes, the condition – initially misdiagnosed as thoracic outlet syndrome – has for years caused Drolet extreme discomfort in her hands and arms. Not ideal for a journalist, or for a 20-something tasked with building IKEA furniture in third-floor walk-up apartments in Montreal. In Look Ma, No Hands, Drolet recounts her situationship with pain, and carefully describes how for most of her adulthood, her upper neck and back have interfered with her ability to thrive. It's an impressive debut in the vein of Emma Healey's Best Young Woman Job Book, but softer, less barbed. If Healey's memoir feels like sharing a night's worth of red wine with that author, Look Ma, No Hands feels like a warm mug of cocoa with Drolet. It's vulnerable and open as she recalls some of the most pivotal moments of her early twenties. As a freelance writer, Drolet's had some, uh, interesting gigs, the most memorable being her stint as a horse journalist, collating information about competitive horse racing into a daily newsletter. Throughout her memoir, she playfully captures the Groundhog Day-esque tumult of wielding words for a living – the simultaneous boredom and dread that accompanies being your own boss. (Even when the work at hand is horses.) Another highlight is the care with which she unpacks her queerness – the ways in which her chronic pain has shaped her capacity to be intimate with partners across the spectrum of gender. While Drolet's experiences are unique to her, one gets the sense she's not alone at the intersection between what her heart and mind long for, and what her body can tolerate. These chapters, in which Drolet turns inward (without once over-sharing), are perhaps Look Ma, No Hands's strongest stuff: They offer a side of her not easily captured in a cartoon or shorter essay. I'll be the first to admit I'm this book's target audience: a bisexual journalist in Canada who's closer to the beginning of my writing career than the middle of it. But Drolet's writerly voice is funny, punchy and dry, and makes no assumptions about the reader holding the memoir in their hands. Suffering from chronic pain? UofT researcher has some ideas to help you cope While established fans of Drolet's cartoons might chuckle at a few familiar turns of phrase, the memoir expands those snapshots of wit into something more concrete, less ephemeral. A time capsule for the zillennials in this country who lost crucial chunks of growing up to the pandemic. If you're unsure this book is for you, I recommend reading Drolet's viral garlic essay – about her love affair with jarred garlic catalyzed by the pain in her hands, published by The Walrus – or this excerpt from her memoir, about the forgotten thrill of calling your friends in a society propped up by e-mails and texts. If you like those stories, you'll love Look Ma, No Hands – and you'll join me in setting up social media alerts for when Drolet sells prints of her artwork. (I'm in the process of having her Severance-inspired animal portraits framed as we speak.) For years, Drolet has captured the quirks of this world through zesty drawings and trendy think-pieces. Now, with Look Ma, No Hands, she's proven she can make long-form writing work for her, with the help of dictation software and impish, hand-drawn characters, creatures who gaze at the words around them with cocked eyebrows and clever captions. No em dashes needed.
New York Times
3 hours ago
- General
- New York Times
A Chronicle of the Rich Getting Richer, Crasser and More Obscene
THE HAVES AND HAVE-YACHTS: Dispatches on the Ultrarich, by Evan Osnos I kept thinking about the Weegee photograph 'The Critic' while reading 'The Haves and Have-Yachts,' Evan Osnos's collection of his 'revised and expanded' New Yorker articles about the 'ultrarich.' In the 1943 picture, two socialites, clad in furs, jewels and tight, dignified smiles, walk into the opening night of the Metropolitan Opera while, off to their left, a tipsy, bedraggled woman in a cloth coat gives them a withering stare. Osnos, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is urbanely critical of the rich who have gotten too rich, but is not Weegee's Critic. There are constant reminders that the various yacht owners, tech disrupters and hedge funders profiled lead a more lavish lifestyle than does the author — but it's clear to the reader that he can pass. Osnos is not a hater of success or even privilege; he's more an anthropologist of unseemly excess. In the acknowledgments, he thanks one of his sources and inspirations: 'a stranger, sitting next to me on a flight nearly a decade ago,' who happened to work in Silicon Valley. This person urged him to examine the 'changing conceptions of wealth, government and the future' then metastasizing among the elites of the ascendant tech sector. Presumably Osnos and this deep-pocketed Deep Throat were not flying coach. Osnos himself grew up in Greenwich, Conn., the son of a publishing executive. After Harvard, he made his way to China first as a student in the wake of the Tiananmen clampdown. By 2008, he was corresponding from Beijing for The New Yorker, at a time when many of America's business elites were making vast sums of money there. His excellent 2014 book 'Age of Ambition' won the National Book Award for its low-high depiction of a country coming of age — which, he writes, most reminded him of the Gilded Age United States. Back in America, Osnos was put on the plutocrat beat, just in time for a scheme-y new Gilded Age. There's plenty of excess to gawk at with him here, but the message is always that great wealth is in some way its own trap. Osnos gives us Anthony Scaramucci's few possible avenues for the rich: 'the art world, or private aircraft and yachting, charity-naming buildings and hospitals after themselves — or they can go into experiential.' Rod Stewart, Usher and Mariah Carey are hired to play at private parties. There's the guy selling 'experiential yachting' programs, which recreate the Battle of Midway to entertain 'bored billionaires,' complete with haptic guns. We meet estate planners who keep the rich from paying their fair share of taxes — if any. A good-looking, if mediocre, actor with an impressive social media presence runs a Ponzi scheme pretending to be a successful movie producer. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Unanimous Rulings on Discrimination, Guns, Religion Show the Supreme Court Isn't As Polarized As You Think
Of all the ink spilled and soundbites recorded railing into the current iteration of the Supreme Court, nothing quite epitomizes the spirit of the prevailing critique than a July cover of The New Yorker. Posed for a portrait, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson look forward cool and defiantly, while the conservative appointees—Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—all look identical, because they all have President Donald Trump's face. The gist is simple. That issue focused "on what appears to many to be an existential threat to democracy," the magazine wrote, which is "the far-right shift of the Supreme Court, and the conservative movement's plans to commandeer it." That critique has persisted for some time now. Some decisions today from the Court help show, once again, why it is neither fair nor accurate. First up was Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, in which the justices reversed a lower court decision and sided with a woman who said she was the victim of reverse discrimination, ruling that members of a majority group do not have to clear a higher bar to prove such claims. The opinion, written by Jackson, was unanimous. Next came Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the lawsuit brought by Mexico against gun manufacturers that the country said had contributed to an illegal flow of weapons across the border, exacerbating cartel violence. The Court concluded that the complaint did not "plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers," and thus blocked the suit. The opinion, written by Kagan, was unanimous. Then there was Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, in which the Court confronted a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that denied Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption available to religious organizations because the group is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and serves multiple faiths, as opposed to just Catholics. The justices rejected that conclusion and said it violated the First Amendment. The opinion, written by Sotomayor, was unanimous. Three remaining rulings also came down unanimously or near unanimously. That may be surprising to those who have heard over and over that the Court is hopelessly ideological and partisan. But agreement on contentious topics—or heterodox overlap in places you would not expect—is not a new phenomenon. Perhaps most emblematic of that last year was the Court's decision in Fischer v. United States, in which the Court ruled 6–3 that many January 6 defendants had been improperly charged with obstruction. "Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis," wrote Jackson, who joined the majority. "We recognize this intuitive fact—that there is a certain category of conduct the rule is designed to prohibit—because we recognize, albeit implicitly, that the drafters of this rule have included these particular examples for a reason. We understand that, given the preceding list of examples, this rule was adopted with a clear intent concerning its scope." Barrett wrote the dissent. There are many such examples. More recently there are the Court's rulings making clear that people Trump seeks to deport using the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process, a view that every one of Trump's appointees has taken. It may be more intoxicating to default to tribal lines and to picture each conservative justice as a Trumpian clone. Reality, however, tells a different story. The post Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No. appeared first on
Atlantic
17 hours ago
- Automotive
- Atlantic
Elon Musk Goes Nuclear
From the moment Elon Musk bounded onstage, midriff bared, to campaign for Donald Trump, cynics predicted that the two men's egos were too large to allow for a lasting alliance. Improbably, however, the bond persisted, despite the rocky rollout of the U.S. DOGE Service, disagreements over legislation, and even covers of The New Yorker and Time that seemed designed to troll Trump and drive a wedge between the men. Now it seems the cynics weren't wrong—just premature. A feud that simmered all week broke into outright hostility this afternoon, with Trump appearing to threaten to cancel all of the contracts and tax subsidies Musk's companies have with the government, and Musk alleging that Trump hasn't released files related to Jeffrey Epstein because he's implicated in them. The falling-out feels both inevitable and still shocking. (The Germans must have a word for this situation; perhaps Trump could ask Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited the White House today.) It was only Friday that Trump and Musk held an amiable press conference in the Oval Office to mark the end of Musk's time as a 'special government employee,' as he returns to his somewhat battered companies. Trump presented Musk with a key to the White House—gilded, but you knew that—and Musk promised to continue to offer Trump advice as much as desired. 'I hope so,' the president replied. He's apparently having second thoughts now. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Trump said alongside Merz. The rift opened over the past few days, as Musk began campaigning against the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act, the sprawling legislation that Republicans are trying to move through both houses of Congress to extend Trump's first-term tax cuts, slash entitlements, and achieve whatever else of the president's agenda they can cram in or sneak past members and the Senate parliamentarian. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk posted on X on Tuesday. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' In another post, he wrote, 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.' In yet another: 'The Big Ugly Bill will INCREASE the deficit to $2.5 trillion!' And a fourth: 'This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' What Musk wants is not entirely clear. His understanding of government spending has always been muddled, which is one reason DOGE was doomed to miss its cost-cutting targets. His sudden emergence as a strict deficit hawk is difficult to believe, though if he's really concerned, he could call for higher taxes. (Somehow it's not surprising that a multibillionaire would prefer to cut social services for average citizens.) One hint about the true source of his fury is that he keeps bringing up reductions in subsidies for electric vehicles, something that could directly affect his bottom line. At first, in an unusual display of circumspection and restraint, the White House tried to avoid directly responding to Musk. Then officials began pushing back, mostly in policy terms. Trump unleashed a flurry of announcements last night that seemed intended to distract from Musk. But then Trump's patience ran out, producing today's soundbite. The president also said he'd rather Musk criticize him personally than the bill, which sounds false. The situation puts Trump in an ironic position: He likes to be the guy on the outside, attacking government officials for failing to accomplish some impossible task. Now Musk is doing that to him, while Trump has to defend the imperfect process of legislation. As of this writing, Musk had pinned to the top of his X profile a repost of many screenshots of Trump arguing for fiscal discipline before having won his first term. 'Where is this guy today??' Musk sniped. A clash between Musk and Trump will be a test of what happens when two of the greatest promoters in mass-media history square off. Both are adept at driving a news cycle; both are the owners of social-media platforms, and although X is much larger than Truth Social, Trump also has the advantage of being, you know, the president of the United States. Which of them can control the news more? But the most interesting clash is the one between two guys who thought they had bought each other off. For a time, they both must have thought they had a great deal. Trump got at least a quarter of a billion dollars in campaign spending from Musk, and he got the joy of having the world's richest man as his sidekick. Maybe Trump even believed that DOGE would be able to make huge budget cuts via improvements in efficiency. Musk, meanwhile, was able to wield unprecedented power as an unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrat. Last year, during an on-stage discussion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the South African-born Musk, 'You can't be president of the U.S. last time I checked, right?' Musk replied with a smirk, 'Not officially.' For a moment, he seemed to achieve that unofficial reign. DOGE was given wide latitude. Musk skulked around the office with his young son and mugged in interviews with the president. He could also help direct contracts to his companies, hurt competitors, and install allies in key posts. At the peak of their bond, and a nadir of propriety, the president arranged an infomercial for Tesla on the White House lawn. Now, as they drift apart, both men are feeling burned. 'I've helped Elon a lot,' Trump groused today. Later, he unloaded on Musk on Truth Social. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!,' Trump wrote, adding in a threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Musk's anger, though just as hot, was tinged with imperious presumption. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk wrote on X this afternoon. 'Such ingratitude.' You can kind of see his point: He thought that investing massive amounts of money into Trump would allow him to get whatever he wanted from Trump, and Trump did little to dispel that impression. Musk's transparency about DOGE's actions was wanting, but he's making it crystal clear what he thought he bought. Trump and Musk are both learning the limitations on their purchases—and the public is getting an illustration of the danger of either of someone like Musk having so much personal influence on the government.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Patti LuPone controversy, explained: The comments, the backlash, the apology and what's next
Patti LuPone, the legendary and often outspoken three-time Tony Award winner, has found herself at the center of a major controversy following remarks made in a The New Yorker interview published on May 26. Her unfiltered criticism of two fellow Tony winners — Kecia Lewis and Audra McDonald — ignited widespread backlash across the Broadway community, sparking conversations about race, privilege, and respect within the theater world. Below is a breakdown of what happened and what's next. The controversy stems from a sound bleed issue between LuPone's production of The Roommate with Mia Farrow and the neighboring theater hosting the Alicia Keys musical Hell's Kitchen. According to LuPone, noise from Hell's Kitchen could be heard from her show. On her stage manager's advice, she reached out to Robert Wankel, head of the Shubert Organization, to resolve the issue. The problem was quickly addressed, and LuPone sent flowers to the Hell's Kitchen crew as a goodwill gesture. More from GoldDerby How 'The Day of the Jackal' producers unlocked their contemporary adaptation of the spy thriller Jacob Elordi reveals personal reason for joining 'The Narrow Road to the Deep North': 'It was something important to me' 'Adolescence' soars past 'Stranger Things' to become Netflix's new No. 2 original show (behind only 'Wednesday') However, that gesture did not land as intended. Lewis took to Instagram at the time to criticize LuPone's actions. In a video post, she described LuPone's approach as 'bullying,' 'racially microaggressive,' and 'rooted in privilege,' pointing out that LuPone had essentially labeled 'a Black show loud.' When asked about Lewis's remarks during the New Yorker interview, LuPone fired back with unfiltered disdain. 'Oh, my God. Here's the problem. She calls herself a veteran? Let's find out how many Broadway shows Kecia Lewis has done, because she doesn't know what the f* she's talking about.' After a quick online search, LuPone said, 'She's done seven. I've done thirty-one. Don't call yourself a vet, bitch.' (Note: The New Yorker clarified that Lewis has ten Broadway credits, while LuPone has twenty-eight.) The exchange escalated when the interviewer noted that Broadway icon McDonald had reacted to Lewis's video with supportive emojis. LuPone didn't hold back: 'Exactly,' she said. 'And I thought, You should know better. That's typical of Audra. She's not a friend.' While she hinted at a past falling out with McDonald, she declined to elaborate. When asked by The New Yorker's By Michael Schulman her opinion of McDonald's recent performance in Gypsy, LuPone paused for fifteen seconds before turning to the window and simply saying, 'What a beautiful day.'Four days after the interview was published, the Broadway community responded with a powerful open letter, signed by more than 500 theater professionals. 'Recently, Patti LuPone made deeply inappropriate and unacceptable public comments about two of Broadway's most respected and beloved artists: Kecia Lewis and Audra McDonald. In a published interview with The New Yorker, she referred to Kecia Lewis—a Black woman and a 40-year veteran of the American stage—as a 'b***.' This language is not only degrading and misogynistic—it is a blatant act of racialized disrespect. It constitutes bullying. It constitutes harassment…' The letter went on to call for accountability, not just from LuPone, but from the institutions that support artists in the theater community. It demanded that: Public figures who engage in harassment or use racially or gendered harmful language should not be welcomed at high-profile industry events, including the Tony Awards. Participation in such events should be contingent on accountability measures, including restorative justice and anti-bias training. Institutions must adopt clear policies for addressing harmful behavior, regardless of an individual's responded swiftly. The day after the open letter went public, she issued an apology on social media — a notable moment for a performer known for standing by her words. 'For as long as I have worked in theatre, I have spoken my mind and never apologized. That is changing today," her note began. "I am deeply sorry for the words I used during The New Yorker interview, particularly about Kecia Lewis, which were demeaning and disrespectful. I regret my flippant and emotional responses during this interview, which were inappropriate, and I am devastated that my behavior has offended others and has run counter to what we hold dear in this community. I hope to have the chance to speak to Audra and Kecia personally to offer my sincere apologies.' She went on to express her support for the open letter: 'I wholeheartedly agree with everything that was written in the open letter shared yesterday. From middle school drama clubs to professional stages, theatre has always been about lifting each other up and welcoming those who feel they don't belong anywhere else. I made a mistake, I take full responsibility for it, and I am committed to making this right. Our entire theatre community deserves better.' While LuPone's apology has been acknowledged by some, others question whether it goes far enough — or whether the industry will take concrete steps toward fostering a more inclusive and accountable environment. For now, the controversy remains a flashpoint — not just about one actor's remarks, but about long-standing issues of privilege, race, and respect on Broadway's most prominent stages. All eyes now turn to the Tony Awards this Sunday, a night that honors Broadway's finest but also serves as a reflection of the industry's values. LuPone is not nominated this year, but her presence — or absence — will be closely scrutinized. The open letter explicitly called for individuals who engage in racially harmful behavior to be excluded from high-profile events like the Tonys. Whether LuPone attends — and if the industry responds at the event — could send a strong signal about how seriously these demands are being taken. Beyond the theater world, LuPone has a high-profile role in the Disney+ series Agatha All Along, where she portrays Lilia Calderu, a centuries-old witch and member of Agatha Harkness's coven. The show is a possible Emmy's contender. However, the controversy may complicate LuPone's awards trajectory if backlash continues, it could overshadow her work. That being said, the "Evita" star remains a formidable performer with a loyal fan base. Only time will tell how she navigates her return in the wake of this controversy. Best of GoldDerby 'Maybe Happy Ending' star Darren Criss on his Tony nomination for playing a robot: 'Getting to do this is the true win' Who Needs a Tony to Reach EGOT? Sadie Sink on her character's 'emotional rage' in 'John Proctor Is the Villain' and her reaction to 'Stranger Things: The First Shadow' Click here to read the full article.
