INDISPENSABLE WHY ZUCKERBERG IS KEY TO CHANGE ONE BIG GIG LATER ALBUM FOLLOWS ROYAL WEDDING OLD WORLD, NEW TASTES LOCAL TALENT HELPS REVIVE MARRAKESH PAGE 6 | BUSINESS PAGE 13 | CULTURE PAGE 15 | TRAVEL .. INTERNATIONAL EDITION | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 A barrel of untruths as Trump woos voters Stalemate divides Italy and the E.U. Luigi Zingales Midterm campaign effort brings false claims of rioting and threats OPINION ZINGALES, PAGE 11 The New York Times publishes opinion from a wide range of perspectives in hopes of promoting constructive debate about consequential questions. BY PETER BAKER AND LINDA QIU TRUMP, PAGE 4 In Brazil, a blood bath foretold RIO DE JANEIRO President-elect promises drastic measures to end a plague of violent crime BY ERNESTO LONDOÑO AND MANUELA ANDREONI Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s next president, won over millions of voters by vowing to make it easier for the police to kill criminals and crush the nation’s violent gangs, often flashing a gun sign with his hands. A “good criminal is a dead criminal,” Mr. Bolsonaro said on the campaign trail. The type of draconian approach Mr. Bolsonaro promised has already been employed for months in his home state of Rio de Janeiro, where the Brazilian military has overseen security operations since February. It has led to a surge in killings by the authorities — and a debate over whether the tactic is working. Between March and September, the police and the army killed at least 922 people in the state of Rio de Janeiro, a 45 percent increase from the same period last year. Nearly one in every four people killed RICARDO MORAES/REUTERS Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s next president, said in August that police officers who gun down armed criminals with “10 or 30 shots need to be decorated, not prosecuted.” here since March has died at the hands of the state. Opinion polls suggest that a broad majority of people in Rio de Janeiro support the military intervention. But while reports of crimes like robberies and cargo theft have declined in the first seven months of the military takeover, the total number of violent deaths in the state has increased. A remake of ‘Suspiria’ gets modern dance right in a manner all its own BY GIA KOURLAS Y(1J85IC*KKNPKP( +,!"!?!&![ BRAZIL, PAGE 2 ANTONIO LACERDA/EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK Brazilian troops in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The military has overseen security operations in the local state since February, leading to a surge of killings by the authorities. “The reduction of violence is strategic to Brazil,” said Samira Bueno, the executive director of the Brazilian Forum for Public Security, which studies violence trends. But so far, she added, “it has been discussed through myths and formulations that aren’t fact or evidence based.” Brazilians broadly agree that drastic measures need to be taken to curb the Casting a witchy spell with movement alone The language in Luca Guadagnino’s remake of the horror film “Suspiria” goes beyond words. His witches speak in movement. In one scene, a dancer — Susie (Dakota Johnson) — performs in a studio, expelling sharp, sudden breaths as she rises and falls, her arms shooting out like daggers. Another dancer, older and worn down, finds herself locked in a mirrored room; she twitches and contorts as she slams into walls and onto the floor to the sound of her own snapping bones. They protrude through her flesh as if they were splitting seams. What’s stunning about the scene isn’t just the violence (though that is shocking), but how Susie’s movements control the other dancer, and how the energy extraordinary wave of violent crime in the country, which led to the deaths of a record 63,880 people last year. In Rio de Janeiro State alone, more than 5,197 people have been killed this year — far more than the 3,438 civilians killed in conflict last year in Afghanistan, according to United Nations figures. The staggering level of violence weighed heavily on voters in the elections last weekend. Along with Mr. Bolsonaro, other politicians who had vowed to hunt down criminals were rewarded at the polls, setting the stage for a period of intensified bloodletting. Mr. Bolsonaro, who won by a decisive margin, said in August that police officers who gun down armed criminals with “10 or 30 shots need to be decorated, not prosecuted.” Wilson Witzel, a former federal judge who was elected governor of Rio de Janeiro State in an upset victory clinched by running as a Bolsonaro ally, put organized crime groups on warning during a speech days before the vote. “There will be no shortage of places to send criminals,” he said. “We’ll dig graves, and as to prisons, if necessary we’ll put them on ships.” This week, he said he favors extending the military intervention, which is set to end in January, for an additional 10 months. And he proposed using snipers, As he barnstorms the country trying to help Republican allies, President Trump has offered voters this fall a litany of misleading statements and falsehoods that exaggerate even legitimate accomplishments and distort opponents’ views beyond the typical bounds of political spin. In the past couple of weeks alone, the president has spoken of riots that have not happened, claimed deals that have not been reached, cited jobs that have not been created and spun dark conspiracies that have no apparent basis in reality. He has pulled figures seemingly out of thin air, rewritten history and contradicted his own past comments. The catalog of inaccurate claims ranges from the weighty to the headscratching. He has asserted that construction has begun on his border wall (it has not), that he is one of the most popular American presidents in history (he is not), that he “always” opposed the Iraq war (he did not), that the stock market reopened the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (it did not), that his tax cut was the largest in history (it was not) and that the United States is the only country that guarantees citizenship to those born there (it is not). As he embarks on a final eight-state blitz before the midterm elections on Tuesday, Mr. Trump has hammered Democrats — not just for their actual policy positions but for some they have not taken. He accused them, without proof, of helping to orchestrate a caravan of Central American migrants; complained that Democrats had opposed opioid legislation when in fact they universally voted for it; and asserted that they would not protect patients with pre-existing conditions — even though that was the heart of President Barack Obama’s health care program. Mr. Trump’s penchant for prevarication has been a well-documented hallmark of his presidency. He dismisses journalists who point out his falsehoods as nit-pickers who do not understand that he is speaking a larger truth that resonates with many Americans. Supporters at his rallies across the country tell reporters that they understand he may not be strictly accurate in his roaring stump speeches, but they see him as a champion of their values. Still, even some in Mr. Trump’s orbit acknowledge that this campaign season has brought out a torrent of untruths that, they worry, distracts from a record he should be proud to outline factually. “If you want me to say he’s a liar, I’m happy to say he’s a liar,” said Anthony Scaramucci, who served a highly abbreviated 11-day stint as White House com- AMAZON STUDIOS Dancers in the horror film “Suspiria,” a remake of the 1977 cult classic. While the new version is over-the-top, unlike most dance movies it is not riddled with stereotypes. sweeping through Susie’s body is palpably wild and free. The scene also serves as a sly metaphor for what happens when an aging dancer is confronted with a younger, fresher version of herself. There may not be broken bones, but the result can feel just as violent. “In one room, you see the force of life,” the film’s choreographer, Damien Jalet, said in an interview. “And in the other it is the force of destruction.” “Suspiria” — as over-the-top as it is — is different. Most dance films, like “Center Stage” and “Black Swan,” are riddled with stereotypes. Finally, here is a film that gets dance right. In the original “Suspiria,” Dario Argento’s 1977 cult classic, a ballet academy is home to a coven of witches. But in Mr. Guadagnino’s version, set that same year in divided Cold War Berlin, the dancers gracing the screen aren’t ballerinas; they’re neither wispy nor ethereal. In Mr. Guadagnino’s view, that witchy power is better unleashed through modern dance. DANCE, PAGE 2 NEWSSTAND PRICES Andorra € 3.70 Antilles € 4.00 Austria € 3.50 Bahrain BD 1.40 Belgium € 3.50 Bos. & Herz. KM 5.50 Cameroon CFA 2700 Canada CAN$ 5.50 Croatia KN 22.00 Cyprus € 3.20 Czech Rep CZK 110 Denmark Dkr 30 Egypt EGP 28.00 Estonia € 3.50 Finland € 3.50 France € 3.50 Gabon CFA 2700 Germany € 3.50 Great Britain £ 2.20 Greece € 2.80 Hungary HUF 950 Israel NIS 13.50 Israel / Eilat NIS 11.50 Italy € 3.50 Ivory Coast CFA 2700 Jordan JD 2.00 Kazakhstan US$ 3.50 Latvia € 4.50 Lebanon LBP 5,000 Luxembourg € 3.50 Malta € 3.40 Montenegro € 3.40 Morocco MAD 30 Norway Nkr 33 Oman OMR 1.40 Poland Zl 15 Portugal € 3.50 Qatar QR 12.00 Republic of Ireland ¤ 3.40 Reunion € 3.50 Saudi Arabia SR 15.00 Senegal CFA 2700 Serbia Din 280 Slovakia € 3.50 Slovenia € 3.40 Spain € 3.50 Sweden Skr 35 Switzerland CHF 4.80 Syria US$ 3.00 The Netherlands € 3.50 Tunisia Din 5.200 Turkey TL 17 U.A.E. AED 14.00 United States $ 4.00 United States Military (Europe) $ 2.00 Issue Number No. 42,188 dior.com Last week, the European Union Commission rejected the 2019 fiscal budget proposed by the new Italian government. The E.U.C.’s vice president, Valdis Dombrovskis, argued that the commission, the bloc’s administrative body, had no alternative but to reject the budget. Italy’s proposed deficit — equal to 2.4 percent of gross domestic product — is too large to guarantee the reduction in the ratio of debt to G.D.P. required by the amended Stability and Growth Pact, which regulates countries in the eurozone. This decision has no immediate economic consequences, but it does have huge political ones. It marks a sharp increase in the political tension between Italy and the rest of Europe — tension The political that might even interests of cause Italy to exit both sides are from the eurozone. in a collision This escalation is with their in the short-term political interest of long-term both sides, but it is political and against their longeconomic term political and interests. economic interests. How is it possible that the Italy-Europe relationship has arrived at this low point? Italy is in a long-term economic decline. Its per capita income has been stagnant for about 25 years. Nearly 200,000 people, mostly young and highly educated, leave the country every year, an acute threat when combined with an aging population (with a strikingly high proportion of citizens aged 65 and over). A large inherited debt burden makes it difficult to finance even basic infrastructure investments. Italy’s economic problems are mostly of its own making. But they are compounded by European Union rules (or lack of thereof ). Without a domestic central bank, the Italian treasuries market is prone to self-fulfilling panics. Italian banks, which do not have a reliable system of deposit insurance, face the risk of a similar panic. Following the 2008-09 crisis, Italy experienced a second painful recession in 2011-13, entirely driven by these risks, which are outside its control. Exasperated by stagnant income and increased uncertainty, Italians overwhelmingly voted last March for two parties — the Five Star Movement and the League — that promised change, especially in the relationship between Italy and the European Union. Italy’s E.U. partners, however, have shown no interest in reshaping this .. 2 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION page two Filipino star who made soul music his own In Brazil, a blood bath foretold BRAZIL, FROM PAGE 1 some aboard helicopters, to gun down anyone spotted carrying a weapon in low-income urban communities known as favelas. João Doria, a former mayor of São Paulo who was elected governor of São Paulo State on Sunday in a tight race, vowed to raise money so that the “best lawyers” could defend police officers sued for killing suspected criminals. Drug gangs have controlled scores of neighborhoods in several large cities in Brazil for decades, becoming the de facto authorities in areas the police seldom go into. Confrontations for territorial control between rival gangs, and clashes with the security forces, greatly contributed to the record bloodshed last year. Gustavo Bebianno, a prominent member of the Bolsonaro campaign who has expressed interest in serving as his justice minister, said that Brazil’s growing violence problem will “become irreversible” unless decisive action is taken soon. “If a lowlife is on the street carrying a weapon ostentatiously, he should be a target,” Mr. Bebianno said. “You don’t talk. You talk after shooting. Why would a decent person be carrying a weapon of war ostentatiously on a public street?” Gen. Walter Souza Braga Netto, the army commander who was appointed to lead the military intervention in Rio de Janeiro, said the vast majority of people killed by the police are “irrational thugs.” Asked to explain the surge in police killings since the intervention began, General Braga Netto explained that his men had trained the police in marksmanship and helped them procure and maintain equipment, leading to better accuracy. “There was a lot of shooting, and basically no one hit anyone,” he said, referring to police operations before the intervention began. “We trained the police and they learned how to hit the target.” Experts warn that encouraging the police to become even more lethal is unlikely to address the root causes of violence, and may well exacerbate them. “You’re implementing the death penalty in the police’s day-to-day activities,” said Ms. Bueno. “In addition to being illegal, contrary to the constitution and immoral, it will make police officers more vulnerable.” Much of the violence in Rio de Janeiro is driven by criminal organizations known as militias, made up of activeduty and retired police officers and military personnel acting on their own. They have become increasingly powerful in communities neglected by the state by extorting protection money from residents, operating unlicensed public transportation businesses and muscling into the drug trade. Militias are suspected of some of the worst crimes committed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, including the drive-by shooting of Marielle Franco, a leftist City Council member killed in March, and the killing of a judge in 2012. Many residents in areas that have become increasingly lethal battlegrounds dread the prospect of more violence in the months ahead and question whether the military intervention will produce a lasting drop in crime. “It puts everyone at risk,” said Sueli Oliveira, 73, who lives in the Santa RICO J. PUNO 1953-2018 BY MIKE IVES CARL DE SOUZA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES A soldier’s funeral in Rio de Janeiro. So far, 5,197 people have been killed in Rio de Janeiro State this year, more than the 3,438 civilians killed in Afghanistan in all of last year. Marta favela in Rio de Janeiro. She noted that some of the soldiers who have been deployed to restless favelas in recent months hail from those communities. “They’re pitting the poor against the poor,” she said. Senior military leaders also appear far from enthusiastic about the increasing militarization of policing. “The armed forces can’t keep the public security of states under its guardianship indefinitely,” Gen. Braga Netto said. “We come, give support, teach them how to manage it, and then we leave.” Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, a retired general whom Mr. Bolsonaro intends to name as defense minister, said that the new president hasn’t signaled whether he wants to continue to rely heavily on the military to address urban violence. “It’s not the mission of our dreams in the armed forces, but if it is necessary, it will continue,” Mr. Heleno said. Adriana Beltrán, a security expert at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights group, said Latin American leaders are increasingly finding it tempting to rely on the armed forces in areas where the police are outgunned and the criminal justice system is dysfunctional. But Brazilian leaders should take note of what has happened in Mexico and Honduras, she said. “The use of the military has not resulted in the disruption of criminal ac- DADO GALDIERI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Drug traffickers securing an alley in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Gangs control neighborhoods in several Brazilian cities — the de facto authorities in areas the police seldom go. tivity or dismantling of criminal networks,” Ms. Beltrán said. “In many cases, gangs and criminal groups have increased their level of organization and sophistication. The cases of Mexico and Honduras demonstrate how the reliance on the military for policing can increase human rights abuses, including torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings.” Beyond proposing to ease the rules of engagement for the police, Mr. Bolsonaro has said that some teenagers should be prosecuted as adults for violent crimes, and he has promised to make it easier for civilians to lawfully carry weapons for self-defense. The rise of tough-on-crime politicians effectively marks the end of the policing strategies that helped drive down violence in the city of Rio de Janeiro when they were set in motion a decade ago. In 2008, the government established a network of what it called Pacification Police Units in favelas across the city in an effort to wrest territorial control from criminal groups. The government managed to reestablish control of dozens of formerly lawless areas, often without firing a shot, paving the way for promised investments in education, health and sanitation. Those investments, however, never fully materialized. And the approach was abandoned amid a state budget shortfall that was exacerbated by a sweeping corruption scandal. Joelma Viana, a 39-year-old single mother who lives in Chatuba da Penha, a favela in the north of the city, said her life was turned upside down in August during a two-day operation in her neighborhood. Ms. Viana, a cook, said the police ransacked her home, destroyed a television set and stole a jewelry box, a watch she had bought her son for his birthday and her favorite pair of hoop earrings. “The modest amount I have been able to save has been a product of a lot of sacrifice, so in that moment, I felt demolished,” said Ms. Viana, who filed a police report on the theft and destruction of her property. “After living here for 38 years, I have never faced something like this. I feel humiliated. I want justice.” Mariana Simões and Brent McDonald contributed reporting. The witchy power of modern dance DANCE, FROM PAGE 1 “Dario making it classical ballet was a big mistake, a misstep,” Mr. Guadagnino said. “If you are a witch, you are on the fringe. You are not at the center. These are women that don’t go for the establishment — they go for what is on the border of the establishment. I thought it was more important that they were going to be radical artists.” Martha Graham is one of the dance artists haunting this film, along with two German choreographers: the expressionist Mary Wigman (1886-1973) — aptly, one her most famous works is “Witch Dance” — and Pina Bausch, who created dense, extravagant works of dance-theater. Tilda Swinton, as Madame Blanc, the artistic director of the fictional Helena Markos Dance Company, draws on all three. Slim as a feather, with hair cascading down her back and a cigarette perpetually wedged between her slender fingers, Madame Blanc snaps at dancers but is somehow — and this is one of many realistic touches in the film — both sharp and maternal. “You don’t look better,” she tells Susie at one point. “Or are you this pale all the time?” She can also echo Graham, without being a parody of her, when she talks about the power of movement: “It’s a series of energetic shapes written in the air like words forming sentences. Like poems. Like prayers.” How did Mr. Guadagnino, the director responsible for the coming-of-age film “Call Me by Your Name,” become so enamored of dance? When he was 15, a couple of years after first he saw “Suspiria,” he attended a performance of “Palermo Palermo,” by Bausch’s Tanztheater Wuppertal, based in Germany. He loved it so much he saw it twice. “I felt, Why is it that I am watching something that is nonverbal and I’m understanding everything?” he said. He realized then, he said, that narra- AMAZON STUDIOS In “Suspiria,” Tilda Swinton, as Madame Blanc, combines elements of Martha Graham, Mary Wigman and Pina Bausch. tive could be transmitted without words. In “Suspiria,” dance is used as a tool to express the power of the witches. “It’s not this kind of marketing idea of the Amazonian world of women who have power,” Mr. Guadagnino said. “It’s more about, what is at the center of a world of sacrifice, discipline and the bending of bodies?” To capture the dance world as authentically as possible, David Kajganich immersed himself in dance history while writing the screenplay. As part of his research, he even shadowed the German choreographer Sasha Waltz. “It was instrumental in understanding how one talks about dance on a casual level,” he said. In the film, Madame Blanc says: “There are two things that dance can never be again. Beautiful and cheerful. Today we need to break the nose of every beautiful thing.” Mr. Kajganich wrote that line in response to a quota- tion by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, who in 1937 said, “Dance must be cheerful and show beautiful female bodies and have nothing to do with philosophy.” “Suspiria” also has ties to this period. The Markos Company’s signature dance, “Volk,” was created in the ’40s. A strident work with Ms. Johnson as its centerpiece, “Volk” relies on the power of the collective — hinting at the rise of fascism — as the dancers play off one another’s breath like a pulsating organism. The idea of gravity is there, too; they surrender themselves and their bodies to a certain fate. It’s as if there were a gravitational pull. The movement language of the witches dates to 2013 when, at the Louvre, Mr. Jalet, a French-Belgian contemporary choreographer, staged the trio “Les Médusées,” inspired by the original “Suspiria.” “Volk” is an expanded version of “Les Médusées.” “‘Volk’ is so omnipresent in the film because they keep on rehearsing it and they talk a lot about it,” Mr. Jalet said. “It was created in the ’40s, but still is performed in the ’70s. That’s a tricky one.” In other words, Mr. Jalet didn’t want to get stuck in trying to recreate a historical piece. “It couldn’t be too flowy,” he said. “At the same time, I wanted to keep a kind of freedom with it.” The structure of “Volk” is based on a pentagram or two opposing stars. “It also looked a little bit like a spider’s web on which the dancers are moving through kind of a hidden network,” Mr. Jalet said. “So they can’t really escape.” He made a discovery with Ms. Johnson, who trained for a year before shooting began with Mary Helen Bowers, who worked with Natalie Portman on “Black Swan.” Her shoulder blades are naturally loose. Very loose. “Somehow it’s disturbing to watch when she’s doing it,” Mr. Jalet said. “She really transforms — it’s beautiful because it really came from her.” Ms. Johnson, who was on a dance team in her teens, had no idea that her shoulder blades were so flexible. “I would do a lot of warm-ups to get my back really loose and warm so that we could exaggerate it even more,” she said, “and make it look like an animal.” And not unlike her character, Ms. Johnson discovered, through dance, a power she didn’t have before. “I feel far more connected to my body,” she said. “I learned that from the dancers.’’ Rico J. Puno, a pop singer from the Philippines who channeled American superstars to forge a distinctive brand of local soul music, died on Tuesday in Taguig, east of Manila. He was 65. A sister-in-law, Anna Puno, confirmed his death in an Instagram post. The Philippine news media reported on Tuesday that the cause of death was cardiac arrest; Mr. Puno had triple-bypass heart surgery in 2015. Mr. Puno became famous in the 1970s by covering American hits — including Barbra Streisand’s “The Way We Were” and Marvin Gaye’s “Baby I’m for Real” — in a mix of English and Tagalog, the dominant language in the Philippines. Those recordings put him in the vanguard of the Manila Sound, Filipino popular music from roughly the mid-1970s through the end of the Ferdinand Marcos era, in 1986. While the Manila Sound encompassed many genres with roots in the United States, such as soul and disco, it also had a distinct melodic style that incorporated Filipino folk traditions and transcended foreign influences, said Joel Quizon, a D.J., filmmaker and music curator in Los Angeles. He said the term Original Pilipino Music eventually replaced Manila Sound as a shorthand for Filipino pop music. As Mr. Puno’s profile grew over the years, he became known throughout the Philippines as the larger-than-life Total Entertainer. Among many other projects, he was a longtime spokesman for San Miguel beer; the host of “Lunch Date,” a popular television variety show; and a star on the sitcom “Home Sweetie Home.” He also represented Makati City, in the Manila area, as a city councilor from 1998 to 2007, and was re-elected in 2016 after losing a 2010 race for vice mayor. “We express our condolences to the legend that is Rico J. Puno,” Salvador Panelo, a spokesman for President Ro- A pop singer who covered an array of American hits in a mix of English and his native Tagalog. drigo Duterte, told reporters on Tuesday. “He has contributed a lot to the music industry.” Despite his forays into television and politics, Mr. Puno was perhaps best known as Macho Gwapito, or Little Handsome, a nickname derived from his hit song of the same name. The term “refers usually to young and rising movie teen stars, but what was wonderful about Rico J., as he was called, was that he impishly appropriated it,” said Patricio Abinales, a professor of Asian studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “So he was not only the ‘ultimate macho,’ but he was also ‘little handsome,’ which endeared him to younger women.” Enrico De Jesus Puno was born on Feb. 13, 1953, and grew up in Manila, according to a short biography posted on his website. After earning a bachelor’s degree in business administration, he tried to find work as a bell boy. But when he failed to get the job, he ended up singing folk songs in Manila nightclubs. Mr. Puno’s big break — a deal with Vicor Records — was precipitated by an encounter in the 1970s with the Motown band the Temptations at the Palazzi, a club where Mr. Puno played regularly. It was during this period that he recorded his signature version of “The Way We Were,” among other popular American songs. Mr. Puno made American music his own by adding bawdy lyrics and banter in Tagalog. One of his best-known covers, for example, was “You Don’t Have to Be a Star,” by Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Jr. He embellished it with this line: “Even if you’re ugly, I still need you.” Over the years, Mr. Puno performed solo and with the Hitmakers, a group that included the Filipino musicians Rey Valera and Hajji Alejandro. “Rico, Valera and Hajji were three of the biggest stars of the glory days of Filipino music,” the music columnist Baby A. Gil wrote in The Philippine Star in 2002. “It is to their credit that they have retained the same vast degree of talent, unique performing style and the capability to excite an audience over nearly 30 years.” In the 1970s and early ′80s, Mr. Puno’s star rose at a time when the Marcos regime, which led the Philippines with an iron fist for two decades, was promoting local songwriting competitions. Mr. Quizon, the music curator, said that the largely upbeat Manila Sound that Mr. Puno helped pioneer was occasionally “derided as too happy or optimistic, especially during that time’s political climate.” But Mr. Puno, a Marcos supporter, was not one to apologize for his art. His website says that his destiny was to be “the Philippines’ one and only Total Entertainer!” His survivors include a daughter, Tosca Camille Puno-Ramos. .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 3 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION World Troops train for war that is actually cold display its ability to mount a full-scale response to an invasion of an ally from multiple locations within 30 days. Russia has certainly taken note, as Moscow has sent official observers to watch the exercise. American officials said Russians had also rented farms in the Norwegian countryside for some unauthorized snooping on the alliance’s military tactics. And Russian officials said they knew the exercise was aimed at them. “All this talk from NATO about Russia not being the target of Trident Juncture doesn’t hold water,” Lt. Gen. Valery Zaparenko, a former deputy chief of the Russian general staff, told RT, a Kremlin-funded television network. “Even if NATO says otherwise, Trident Juncture is really preparation for a large-scale armed conflict in regions bordering with the Russian Federation.” Officials with the Atlantic alliance said Russia had nothing to worry about — so long as Moscow does not get aggressive with alliance members. The ABOARD THE U.S.S. IWO JIMA, ON THE NORWEGIAN SEA After conflicts in places like Iraq, NATO exercise gives taste of chilly weather BY HELENE COOPER Among hundreds of Marines boarding amphibious assault vehicles this week to get from the frigid sea to the frigid beach, Lance Cpl. Jacob Boutte was armed with a secret weapon: black Merino-wool long johns. They were not part of the Marine Corps’s standard kit during 17 years of deployments to the warmer climes of Afghanistan, Djibouti, Iraq and Syria. So as he prepared to embark on one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s largest exercises since the end of the Cold War, Corporal Boutte turned to allies for help. “I talked to the Norwegians about what they use,” he said. “We haven’t fought in the cold in a long time,” said Sgt. Juan Carlos Banda, a platoon leader with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Roughly 15,000 American troops, most of them Marines, are participating in the Norway exercise, called Trident Juncture. Hovering over it is a consuming narrative about the alliance’s next possible war: the more immediate adversary is closer to northern Europe. It is Russia. The country’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, has made no secret of his distaste for the Atlantic alliance’s encroachment into territory he considers part of his sphere of influence — particularly in the Baltics and in the Balkans. And since Moscow seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, Western officials have worried that NATO states could be next. Warfare in northern Europe would be entirely different than recent conflicts. It requires attention to a separate set of small details, like carrying cold-weather lubricant for machine guns, as well as seismic decisions, like moving thousands of men and women, and their heavy machinery and weapons, across fields packed with snow — something American troops have not had to worry much about for more than a half-century. The Americans are among 50,000 allied troops participating in the Trident Juncture exercise, which is based in Trondheim, Norway. The official line from there, according to Lt. Col. Ben Sakrisson, is that the war game is “entirely defensive in nature.” In an email to reporters before the exercise began, Colonel Sakrisson said Trident Juncture was “focused on ensuring the continued freedom and liberty of our allies’ nations, and partners, and their citizens.” “The strongest deterrent against any adversary encroaching on our nations’ territories is a credible and well-practiced collective defensive capability,” he said. Unprovoked, the Atlantic alliance does not plan to attack Russia. Still, Eastern European members of the group worry that Mr. Putin will, at some point, challenge the collective defense Hovering over Trident Juncture is a consuming narrative about the alliance’s next possible war, with Russia as an adversary. PHOTOGRAPHS BY LAETITIA VANCON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Clockwise from top: An MV-22 Osprey, the United States Marine Corps’s main assault support aircraft, landing on the deck of the Iwo Jima; the mess deck of the Iwo Jima; a Marine adjusting a satellite dish in Vaernes, Norway. The Americans are among 50,000 allied troops participating in the Trident Juncture exercise based in Trondheim, Norway. compact, which holds that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. This year, President Trump questioned the agreement, putting the alliance on the spot and potentially weakening its backbone. The premise of the exercise is that Norway has been invaded by hostile “South Forces.” For the purpose of the war game, the enemy invaders are being played mostly by British, Dutch, German and Italian troops. Coming to the rescue are the “North Forces” representing NATO — United States Marines and brigades of soldiers from Canada, Norway and Sweden. In September, only days after Hurricane Florence tore through much of the Southeast, the Marines and 1,500 members of the Navy left Norfolk, Va., aboard the amphibious assault ship Iwo Jima. They weathered choppy seas and frigid winds for 10 days on the Atlantic Ocean before arriving in Reykjavik, Iceland. The Marines aboard the ship had prepared to practice an attack in Reykjavik before the Trident Juncture exercise in Norway but had to cancel. “Sea conditions were too rough,” Adm. James G. Foggo III, the head of the Allied Joint Force Command based in Naples, Italy, said Monday in an interview. “It’s an exercise, not a war, and we decided to hold off because we didn’t want to swamp the vehicles.” The Iceland exercise began on Monday and stretched over two days. It saw Marines pour from large hovercraft that had moved troops and vehicles from the Iwo Jima and onto a beach. Once on land, they scaled steep hills and rumbled along roads, heading south, toward advancing enemy forces played by Italians. The larger Trident Juncture war game will continue through next Wednesday and will include mock assaults on Norwegian towns and a ski resort. The drills will involve clandestine water crossings and battles — although, thankfully for residents, not with live gunfire. It is the largest iteration of the Trident Juncture exercise since 1991, when the Cold War ended. The 50,000 troops — from all 29 NATO member states, plus Finland and Sweden — arrived within the past 30 days, with 65 ships, 250 warplanes and more than 10,000 vehicles. Officials said the alliance wanted to speed with which it moved troops and war equipment to Norway from 29 countries, Admiral Foggo said, “sends a message to Russians, or anybody else that might want to encroach on the sovereignty of any of our members.” In the mock invasion, Italian troops led the multinational armored brigade. Germany’s 232nd Mountain Infantry Battalion thundered in by train. And tiny Montenegro sent a platoon, even after being disparaged by Mr. Trump in July as having people who could “get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War III.” The American Marines flung themselves at the Norwegian beaches from the water, like on D-Day. But for all the show of force, the troops have been running into trouble with the cold weather. Two Italian soldiers ended up with hypothermia after spending the night in below-freezing temperatures. Capt. Joseph O’Brien of the Navy, the commanding officer of the Iwo Jima, found himself suddenly tending to the heaters on his ship — just back from five months off the coast of Djibouti — to ensure they still worked. And Cpl. Jeremy Seabridge, a Marine rifleman, said he was focused on making sure his troops changed their socks regularly to prevent trench foot, caused by prolonged exposure to the cold. “A lot of them are from Southern states,” said Cpl. Derek Hussinger, a machine-gunner. Last week, from just below Iwo Jima’s flight deck, Col. Eric D. Cloutier, the commanding officer for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, surveyed the impressive array of amphibious vehicles ready to pour out of his ship. Hot or cold, he said, his Marines would get the job done. But, he added, “I do worry how our equipment and personnel will do” with acclimating to “the high north.” Julian E. Barnes contributed reporting from Washington, and Henrik Pryser Libel from Oslo, Norway. Vancouver’s entrenched pot culture defies legalization VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA BY DAN BILEFSKY In the pot-friendly city of Vancouver, illegal marijuana dispensaries outnumber Starbucks outlets, and among the most popular is Weeds, Glass and Gifts. There, in a relaxed space reminiscent of the coffee chain, jovial “budtenders” sell coconut chocolate bars infused with marijuana and customers smoke powerful pot concentrates at a sleek dab bar. When Canada legalized recreational marijuana, on Oct. 17, one of the central aims was to shut down the thousands of illegal dispensaries and black market growers dotting the country. But taming an illegal trade estimated at 5.3 billion Canadian dollars, or $4 billion, is starting to look daunting. Many of the products sold at Weeds, Glass and Gifts are banned under the new law, which restricts licensed retailers to selling fresh or dried cannabis, seeds, plants and oil. Yet the retailer’s owner, Don Briere, an ebullient 67-yearold and self-styled pot crusader, has no intention of shutting down his four Vancouver stores or changing his product lineup. He even has plans for expansion with a new line of outlawed canine marijuana treats that purport to reduce pet anxiety. “We’ll keep selling what we are selling,” said Mr. Briere, who in 2001 was sentenced to four years in prison for being one of British Columbia’s most prolific pot producers. The Canadian government faces many challenges in stamping out the illegal marijuana industry. For one, there are too many black market shops like Mr. Briere’s for the government to keep track of. And as sluggish provincial bureaucracies struggle to manage a new regulatory system, licenses to operate legally are hard to come by, giving illegal sellers added impetus to defy the law. At the same time, the police and the public have little appetite for a national crackdown. “The government taking over the cannabis trade is like asking a farmer to build airplanes,” Mr. Briere added. Canadian policymakers say legalization is a giant national undertaking that will take years to be enforced. Mike Farnworth, British Columbia’s minister of public safety, argued that civic pressure and market forces would help gradually diminish the illegal trade. “It’s a very Canadian way of doing things,” he said. “It won’t happen overnight.” There will, he added, be no mass raids, “guns and head-bashing.” Nevertheless, he noted, newly created “community safety units” in British Columbia, staffed by 44 unarmed inspectors, have been given the power to raid dispensaries without a search warrant, seize illegal products and shut them down. In the days since legalization took effect, there have been signs of a chill, if a modest one. In Toronto, police raided five illegal pot retailers, two days after the law went into effect. Dozens of others in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa have voluntarily closed their doors to avoid being shut out of the legal market. Even Mr. Briere, who once owned 36 shops across Canada, is applying for government licenses for his stores, and has shuttered nine shops, including in Ottawa, Alberta and Saskatchewan. He is steering those customers to his illegal online shop instead. Yet hundreds of black market pot out- work, take pot-fueled hikes and chat about strains of vaunted “BC bud” — grown illegally near snow-covered mountains in the southeast of the province — as if discussing fine wine. For decades, cannabis has been so deeply embedded in the social fabric of the city that illegal pot shops operated with impunity as so-called compassion “The government taking over the cannabis trade is like asking a farmer to build airplanes.” ALANA PATERSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES A marijuana store in Vancouver, the epicenter of pot in Canada. Black market pot dispensaries abound, illustrating the country’s difficulties of policing illegal trade. lets remain defiantly open, abetted by provincial governments slow to implement the new law. On Oct. 17, only one legal government pot retailer opened in British Columbia, in the city of Kamloops, nearly a fourhour drive from Vancouver. That assured that Vancouver’s illicit trade would continue to thrive. And that day, none of the roughly 100 illegal pot dispensaries in the city had the provincial licenses they needed to operate legally, even those that had applied for one. In Ontario, where the government’s online Ontario Cannabis Store has been overwhelmed with soaring demand, some pot smokers unwilling to wait five days for delivery are reverting to their illegal dealers instead. “Definitely going to use my dealer from now on his business is going way up because of your crappy service,” one frustrated customer wrote on Twitter. In Montreal, some underground dealers, who do home delivery, are challenging the new legal market by offering two-joints-for-the-price-of-one deals. As cities across the country grapple with a new national experiment, Vancouver offers a striking cautionary tale about the challenges of policing the illegal trade. In this picturesque multicultural port city less than a three-hour drive from Seattle, marijuana is as much a recreational drug as a state of mind. Young professionals toke before clubs for those seeking medical marijuana, with the police largely turning a blind eye. But in 2015, City Hall officials, fed up with the proliferation of black market dispensaries, including some selling to minors, passed tough regulations stipulating, among other things, that shops must be about 1,000 feet from schools, community centers or other outlets. After dozens of dispensaries brazenly flouted the new rules, the city in 2016 began fining transgressors, issuing 3,729 tickets amounting to more than $3 million in fines. But the dispensaries mostly ignored them; only $184,250 has been paid. Then the city began trying to shut down illegal operators with injunctions. In March of this year, 53 dispensaries banded together to file a constitutional challenge, saying closing the operators would breach Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying patients access to medical marijuana they purchased at the black market stores. “The city is using legalization to try and impose Prohibition,” said Robert Laurie, the lawyer representing the dispensaries. The case is before British Columbia’s Supreme Court. Kerry Jang, a left-leaning councillor on the Vancouver City Council who is also a professor of psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, and who helped develop the 2015 rules, said the injunctions were necessary to root out “a wild West” of illegal dealers. The new legal marijuana supply chain was in full force on a recent day outside of Vancouver at Pure Sunfarms, where immigrant workers in surgical masks were trimming buds from cannabis plants next to a sprawling greenhouse that once housed tomatoes. Rob Hill, chief financial officer of Emerald Health Therapeutics, a licensed producer that owns part of Pure Sunfarms, predicted that it was only a matter of time before black market growers went out of business as consumers demanded the purity of government-approved pot, free of contaminants found in some street marijuana. “We expect a new consumer market of women age 35-45 who will smoke pot instead of drinking chardonnay,” he said. But Dana Larsen, owner of several illegal dispensaries in Vancouver, countered that underground cannabis cultivation remained deeply entrenched. Legalization is doomed to fail, he added, because there is so little will to enforce it. Mr. Larsen said he had accumulated heavy unpaid fines from City Hall, had no intention of applying for a license and was far more concerned about being able to provide cannabis to the elderly and ill customers who relied on him. “In Vancouver,” he said, “you have to make an effort to get busted.” .. 4 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION world Obama lifted them up. Now they want to fight. LAS VEGAS BY ASTEAD W. HERNDON John Toles-Bey wants to be clear: He loves Barack Obama. Mr. Toles-Bey, a 62-year-old smallbusiness owner, voted for the former president twice, after never participating in elections in his life. He now follows politics incessantly, an obsession he credits to Mr. Obama’s influence. He started a T-shirt company called You Can’t Trump God after Mr. Obama left office, because President Trump’s election sent him into a downward emotional spiral that only religion could counteract. But even as Mr. Toles-Bey waited outside one of Mr. Obama’s recent rallies, he wondered aloud if his political hero’s signature idealism had a place in today’s flame-throwing political climate. “It’s a different world we’re living in,” Mr. Toles-Bey said. “And we need something different.” As Mr. Obama has crisscrossed the United States in support of Democratic candidates, nerves are rattling among some members of the coalition that fueled his historic rise from backbencher in the Illinois Statehouse to America’s first black president. A week of domestic terrorism has shocked the political system ahead of the 2018 elections. And while Mr. Obama’s speeches this election cycle have largely stuck with his trademark themes of idealism and hope, some of his supporters wonder if they’re witnessing a living time capsule from a bygone era of civil political rhetoric. Mr. Obama remains the top Democratic surrogate in the United States, and he will be lending his star power to some of the most closely watched Democratic candidates during the campaign’s final week, including Andrew Gillum in Florida, Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. But the election of Mr. Trump has tested the former president’s theory of measured change, his advisers acknowledge. It has also jaded some of the legions of voters Mr. Obama brought into the Democratic fold, including young people and minorities. Mr. Obama’s advisers say the former president sees “resisting” Mr. Trump and inspiring voters as a false choice. They point to his speeches this summer that broke with long-held tradition by heavily criticizing Mr. Trump, even if he rarely mentioned the current president by name. JOE BUGLEWICZ FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Former President Barack Obama greeting crowds at a rally in Las Vegas. Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters wonder if his political civility is outdated in the Trump era. Still, like Mr. Toles-Bey, some supporters of Mr. Obama have come to want a fist, not a handshake, in an era when the new generation of progressives is hitting back harder at Mr. Trump than the former president usually does. “For a long time, older generations have told us, ‘This is how politics is supposed to work,’ but we’re pushing back on that,” said Gabriella Lorance, a 20year-old who went to see Mr. Obama with her two friends in Milwaukee. She was 10 when he was first elected president. They took a moment to list their favorite politicians: Jason Kander, the former Missouri secretary of state; Beto O’Rourke, the Senate candidate for Texas; and Sharice Davids of Kansas, a former mixed martial arts fighter who could become the first lesbian Native American elected to Congress. Mr. Obama didn’t make the cut. “There has to be a reframing of how we go about making change,” said LaTosha Brown, an organizer and a cofounder of Black Voters Matter. She said that although she respected Mr. Obama, particularly because he was a former community organizer, she had come to see him as a “constitutionalist” in an era that requires more radical action. Eric Holder, the former attorney general who served under Mr. Obama and is eyeing a run for president, caught the ire of Mr. Obama’s network when he took a more dark spin on the famous Michelle Obama line, “When they go low, we go high.” “When they go low, we kick them,” Mr. Holder said in Georgia last month. “That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” Mr. Obama’s speeches are littered with appeals to conservatives, and in Milwaukee he oscillated between indicting the modern Republican Party and appealing to those he called “compas- sionate conservatives” interested in building a coalition. But the next generation of Democrats may forgo such wavering in favor of a more uncompromising tone. In the last week, amid an eruption of political violence, two members of that new group of progressive Democrats stood out for their forceful language: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. “Imagine if it was ISIS that sent bombs to US officials, started shooting in grocery stores, and invading places of worship,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “How do you think this administration would respond?” Ms. Tlaib went further. “Blaming the Pittsburgh shooting on #TreeOfLifeSynagogue members shows your lack leadership & compassion to be POTUS,” she said, in a tweet that included two explicit phrases directed at Mr. Trump. “The terrorist had an AR-15 assault rifle (weapon of war)& killed fellow Americans, human beings that deserve better.” Mrs. Obama has defended her “going high” mantra, saying that leaders have a responsibility to show a “level of decency” and that “fear is not a proper motivator.” Valerie Jarrett, a close adviser to Mr. Obama, said in an interview that he understands the frustration among Democrats during Mr. Trump’s administration. Ms. Jarrett said that while it might be “harder” for the president to try to “appeal to our better angels” during this political time, it remained necessary. Mr. Obama “wouldn’t be who he is if he were to change his message now,” Ms. Jarrett said. “The question isn’t just, Do you give people what, in a moment, they think they want to hear? You give them the message that you think is important for them to hear. That’s what leadership is about.” Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters agreed with Ms. Jarrett. Kasey Dean, 28, who waited for Mr. Obama before his rally in Nevada last week, said it was the duty of politicians to uplift the country in moments of uncertainty — not to sink to fear. Hallie Sebena, 34, who saw Mr. Obama’s rally in Milwaukee, said “there are ways to fight back without being dirty.” “We need conversations that begin from a place of civility,” Ms. Sebena said. Other liberal voters said they had been so enraged by Mr. Trump’s administration that it changed what they look for in a Democratic messenger. Maybe it should be someone who is more of a “fighter,” said Tom Mooshegian, 64, in Las Vegas. Mr. Obama did not publicly respond to Mr. Holder’s comments, but repeatedly in his speeches this summer, the former president has made an impassioned plea for his brand of politics: hopeful, civil and driven by incremental progress. “There’s something at stake in this election that goes beyond politics,” Mr. Obama said in Milwaukee last week. “What is at stake is a politics that is decent. And honest. And lawful. That tries to do right by people and that’s worthy of this country we love.” A barrel of untruths from Trump on the campaign trail TRUMP, FROM PAGE 1 munications director last year and says he remains an enthusiastic supporter. Speaking on CNN last week as he promoted a new book, Mr. Scaramucci was invited to offer his advice directly to the camera as if he were addressing Mr. Trump. “You should probably dial down the lying,” Mr. Scaramucci said, “because you don’t need to do it. You’re doing a great job for the country.” Here are some of Mr. Trump’s most egregious falsehoods since Oct. 22. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States . . . with all of those benefits. — Interview with Axios, Oct. 30 eight countries — Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, New Zealand, Australia and Brunei — have cleaner air than the United States. I think the Democrats had something to do with it. — Campaign rally in Houston, Oct. 22 This lacks evidence. For the past couple of weeks, Mr. Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats of supporting or even financing the migrant caravan. He has yet to offer proof of these claims. The Times has reported that the caravan apparently started out as a small group in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, but swelled amid publicity from Honduran television as migrants joined it to escape poverty and violence. Although Democrats (and some Republicans) have opposed some Trump administration border policies, Democrats have supported legislation to improve border security. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID We don’t even have tariffs. I’m using tariffs to negotiate. I mean, other than some tariffs on steel — which is actually small, what do we have? — Interview with The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 23 False. In addition to steel, Mr. Trump has imposed tariffs on washing machines, solar panels, aluminum, Canadian lumber and $250 billion worth of goods from China. His administration also placed tariffs on Canadian newsprint, but those were overturned in August by the United States International Trade Commission. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on cars, uranium and an additional $267 billion in Chinese goods. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID False. At least 30 other countries, including Mexico and Canada, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to studies from the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA, two groups that support restricting immigration. MR. TRUMP: You shouldn’t have — take a look. They want to get out of sanctuary cities. Many places in California want to get out of sanctuary cities. REPORTER: WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID MR. TRUMP: They say it happens all the time from the Middle East. But that’s not even saying bad or good. But some real bad ones. But they intercept . . . cases. MR. TRUMP: But that’s not rioting, sir, Yeah, it is rioting in some MR. TRUMP: REPORTER: Well, they could very well be. But there’s no proof? There’s no proof of anything. There’s no proof of anything. But they could very well be — if you look at what that was building. — Remarks to reporters at the White House, Oct. 23 MR. TRUMP: This lacks evidence. Reporters traveling with the caravan have denied Mr. Trump’s baseless suggestion that there are Middle Eastern terrorists in the caravan. The Department of Homeland Security said citizens from “countries in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and elsewhere are currently traveling through Mexico toward the U.S.” without offering any proof. Counterterrorism officials told The New York Times that there was no credible threat that terrorist groups were trying to infiltrate the border. Government data shows that citizens from the Middle East made up less than 1 percent of people apprehended at the border in the 2017 fiscal year. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID Do you know how the caravan started? Does everybody know what this means? DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES President Trump at a campaign rally in Murphysboro, Ill. His penchant for prevarication has been well documented. Where are the riots, sir? — Remarks to reporters at the White House, Oct. 22 REPORTER: REPORTER: But no — no proof that they’re in the caravan now? WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID right? This lacks evidence. A few locales in California, including Orange County and San Diego County, have voted to support a Trump administration lawsuit against California’s socalled sanctuary city laws, under which local law enforcement authorities must limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials. But there is no evidence that these laws have led to riots anywhere. The California Police Chiefs Association told PolitiFact that it was unaware of any riots, and Mr. Trump did not respond when asked to specify the location of the riots he cited. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID And I was always critical of President Bush for attacking Iraq. — Interview with The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 23 False. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. In 2002, asked if he supported an invasion, Mr. Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so.” Mr. Trump spoke out against the war in 2004, a year after it began. It did not stop him from supporting President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID I went to Saudi Arabia on the basis that they would buy hundreds of billions — many billions of dollars’ worth of things. And the ultimate number is around $450 billion, $110 for military. $450 billion. I think that’s over a million jobs. A million to over a million jobs. — Remarks to reporters at the White House, Oct. 23 False. Mr. Trump has celebrated an arms deal that was reached with Saudi Arabia last year, but his figures are wildly inflated. The Times reported last year that the $110 billion refers to the value of military capabilities offered to Saudi Arabia, characterized by the government as “intended sales.” The State Department estimated that, as of Oct. 16, the agreement has resulted in $14.5 billion in implemented deals. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency lists about $17 billion in total approved sales since Mr. Trump’s trip in May 2017, and that figure includes a $15 billion missile defense system that has since stalled. Last year, the Trump administration also trumpeted $270 billion in possible commercial deals, which double-counts some of the agreements in the arms package. It is unclear what Mr. Trump is referring to with the $450 billion figure. As for “over a million jobs” — an increase over the “hundreds of thousands of jobs” Mr. Trump claimed last year — that figure is also suspect. Almost all of the jobs announced as a result of the potential sales were in Saudi Arabia, not the United States. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID But I’m one of the most popular presidents in this country, and that’s good. That’s just good. — Rally in Houston, Oct. 22 False. Several polls show the opposite: Mr. Trump is among the least popular presidents in American history. A CNN poll gave Mr. Trump a 40 percent favorable rating, compared with 61 percent for Mr. Bush and 66 percent for Mr. Obama, as of January. A February poll by the University of Virginia and Ipsos gave Mr. Trump the third-lowest rating of the 12 most recent presidents. existing conditions. In August, Republican senators announced legislation to preserve protections for pre-existing conditions if the Affordable Care Act was dissolved. Even so, the bill would allow insurers to refuse to cover certain illnesses. This spring, the Justice Department told a federal court that it would no longer defend provisions in the health law that protect people with pre-existing conditions. By October, the Trump administration released new guidance allowing states to offer subsidies to patients, as provided by the Affordable Care Act. The guidance encourages buying cheaper plans that offer fewer benefits and can exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID America: the Cleanest Air in the World — BY FAR! — Twitter post, Oct. 24 They wouldn’t meet with Obama, the European Union. Japan wouldn’t meet with Obama. And they wouldn’t meet with us either. — Interview with The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 23 False. From 2013 to 2016, the European Union and the United States engaged in 14 rounds of talks over a trade agreement known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a deal that was never signed. Mr. Obama personally and repeatedly met with European Union leaders during the negotiations. Additionally, the United States and Japan were both signatories to the TransPacific Partnership, the trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration and 12 Pacific Rim nations. Mr. Trump abandoned the deal early in his presidency. WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID I remember Dick Grasso, a friend of mine, great guy. He headed up the New York Stock Exchange on Sept. 11. And the New York Stock Exchange was open the following day. — Campaign rally in Murphysboro, Ill., Oct. 27 WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not! Vote Republican. — Twitter post, Oct. 24 False. Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year was widely supported by Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress, and opposed by Democrats. Most of the repeal plans would have undermined protections for patients with pre- False. The map Mr. Trump shared in his tweet appeared to be an altered version of a map from a World Health Organization report on exposure to air pollution. While the image does show Americans breathing relatively healthy air, nowhere in the report does it say that the United States has the cleanest air in the world. The World Health Organization’s database on air pollution shows that False. The New York Stock Exchange, blocks from the World Trade Center, did not open the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It reopened on Sept. 17, 2001. Mr. Grasso attended the opening ceremony, along with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the mayor of New York at the time and now Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. Katie Rogers and Abby Goodnough contributed reporting. .. THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 5 .. 6 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION Business Zuckerberg is now too big to fail Farhad Manjoo STATE OF THE ART EBRAHIM NOROOZI/ASSOCIATED PRESS A bazaar in Tehran. The Trump administration hopes sanctions will force Iran to make fundamental changes in its domestic and foreign policies. Obstacles in push against Iran WASHINGTON U.S. efforts to increase pressure could result in further alienation of allies BY GARDINER HARRIS President Trump called on world leaders in September to slash their purchases of Iran’s oil before the imposition on Nov. 5 of major sanctions, the last major pieces of the administration’s blockade of the Iranian economy. “We ask all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues,” Mr. Trump said at the United Nations. But less than a week before the crucial deadline this Monday, the campaign against Iran is facing severe challenges. China and India, the largest buyers of Iranian oil, will continue making huge purchases, with Turkey and perhaps Russia following suit. Britain, France and Germany have promised to continue doing business with Tehran. And Saudi Arabia, the administration’s crucial partner in its anti-Iran efforts, is facing global censure and threats of sanctions from Congress after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist and Saudi dissident. Penalties against Saudi Arabia could undercut efforts to keep global oil prices stable as Iran’s exports plunge. The problems have piled up as European diplomats and oil analysts say that even after the sanctions take effect, Iran will most likely sell at least one million barrels of crude oil a day — a sharp decline from last year but perhaps enough to sustain its economy and wait out Mr. Trump’s term. The Trump administration’s stated goal for its sanctions campaign is for Iran to make a dozen fundamental changes to its domestic and foreign policies, including ending its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Few analysts believe the Iranian government could fulfill the demands and survive. “There is no way the Trump administration will be able to achieve its 12 stated objectives because they’re utterly unrealistic,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But efforts to tighten the screws on Tehran in the coming months could further alienate European allies, freight the relationship with China with yet another difficult dispute, undermine decades of efforts to woo India, and impede the stabilization of Syria and the battle against the Islamic State. Administration officials dismiss these risks in part because earlier warnings by critics about the downsides of leaving the Iran nuclear deal largely proved false. IRAN At the heart of Iran’s financial future are its oil and gas exports, and Trump administration officials have adamantly said for months that they intend to reduce those exports to zero and penalize any country that continues purchases after Nov. 4 — which would effectively destroy Iran’s economy. On Tuesday, a State Department spokesman retreated from those implacable demands. “Our goal remains to get to zero oil purchases from Iran as quickly as possible. That’s not changed,” the spokesman, Robert Palladino, said, adding, “But we are prepared to work with countries that are reducing their imports on a case-by-case basis.” The Nov. 5 sanctions target Iran’s central bank, oil sales and shipping companies, and they come on top of a set of sanctions in August. Administration threats have already persuaded buyers in Europe, Japan and South Korea to largely stop purchasing from Iran. But during the United Nations General Assembly in September, foreign ministers from Britain, France, Germany and the European Union joined those from China, Iran and Russia in promising to collaborate on the creation of a “special purpose vehicle” independent of the dollar to continue commercial relations. Trump administration officials reacted to the announcement with derision and fury. Even in Europe, economists and officials doubt the new financial channel will yield significant economic benefits for Iran or threaten the global dominance of the dollar anytime soon. And yet its symbolism was profound. CHINA, INDIA AND TURKEY Beijing presents another challenge. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil and although Beijing recently instructed two large state oil companies to stop purchases for a time, China will most likely remain the biggest buyer. The Trump administration has given Beijing “no reason to be in compliance with U.S. law on Iran,” said Sung-Yoon Lee of Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Medford, Mass. Oil executives and analysts agree. Some are predicting that the administration will announce penalties against some Chinese entities on Nov. 5 to show toughness against Beijing, a stance popular with Mr. Trump’s voters, before the midterm elections the next day. But such sanctions would most likely be largely symbolic. Tariffs against China have already spooked Wall Street and lowered global growth projections. Broad sanctions could set off a panic. In India, the second-largest buyer of Iranian oil, private companies like the energy giant Reliance have largely stopped purchasing it. Government en- tities ramped up purchases over the summer so they could show reductions next year, analysts said. But significant purchases will most likely continue. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reelection campaign, scheduled for next spring, will prevent him from acceding to American demands on Iran, said Mohan Guruswamy, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in India. “Modi can’t be seen as buckling on Iran since public sentiment is not with the U.S. on these new sanctions,” Mr. Guruswamy said. Turkey, which gets most of its oil and natural gas from Iran and Russia, will continue oil purchases and other commercial relations with Iran, diplomats and analysts said. A recent warming between Ankara and Washington after the release from detention of an American pastor would be dashed by penalties, said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. VICTORY LAP Sanctions have caused pain, but they have yet to produce clear strategic victories for the Trump administration. Despite sanctions on North Korea, Russia and Venezuela, Pyongyang has so far shown no signs of slowing its nuclear and ballistic missile weapons production, President Vladimir V. Putin has only grown bolder and Venezuela continues to slide into anarchy. But administration officials will take a victory lap on Nov. 5. They are mindful that when Mr. Trump announced in May that he was walking away from the Iran nuclear deal, critics predicted that Tehran would soon restart its nuclear program, that oil prices would soar and that sanctions would never truly bite without the support of others in the deal. None of those warnings proved true, giving administration officials a great sense of confidence in their policy. Rescuing the local bookstore LONDON Hundreds of volunteers line up to help a shop shift its stock to a new location BY YONETTE JOSEPH The plea went out a few weeks ago from the bookstore in a port city in southern England: “Care to lend a hand?” Volunteers were needed for “heavy manual work” in shifts. It was “essential” that they be able to lift and carry boxes and office supplies. Among the supplies: thousands upon thousands of books. The appeal from October Books, a nonprofit organization that began 40 years ago as a “radical” bookshop, came after a rent increase forced it from its old home in Southampton, Jess Haynes, a member of the collective and one of the few paid employees, said on Wednesday. The shop was looking to move lock, stock and barrel about 150 meters ( just under 500 feet) to a three-story building that used to house a bank. Would anybody respond to the call for help? This past Sunday, the bookstore got more than a helping hand — it got hundreds. A human chain began forming from the old October Books stockroom, OCTOBER BOOKS A bookstore in England received a helping hand in moving 54 doors down to a new space. snaking past 54 doors to the new building. The shop stopped counting after about 250 people showed up, Ms. Haynes said by phone. Hand-to-hand, the chain of people passed thousands of books over a few hours. “It was very moving,” Ms. Haynes said, adding that the employees were “all getting choked up” about how members of the community had leapt to help out. It was the local community, after all, that came to the bookshop’s rescue more than once before — including when, after 15 years, it had to move because the rent increased. The store settled on a former bank building up the street. But instead of taking out a mortgage, Ms. Haynes said, October Books boldly started a fund-raising drive to buy its new home, setting a goal of 510,000 pounds, or about $650,000, by May 31. The move paid off, and the shop en- tered into arrangements to receive community donations and loans, agreeing to pay back the latter over one, five or 10 years, Ms. Haynes said. At a time when independent bookshops are disappearing, she said, “we believe in the value of bookshops.” Last year, the Booksellers Association noted that the number of independent bookshops in Britain had fallen for the 11th year in a row. In 2005, there were 1,535 independent stores, but by 2017 that figure had fallen to 867. The association cited “a cocktail of pressures” for the closings, including rising rents, competition from e-books and online sellers, along with the rising popularity of other entertainment platforms like Netflix and gaming. October Books originally began as a small shop for feminist, L.G.B.T., socialist and Green Party literature, she said. It later expanded to fiction, children’s literature and books about organic food and fair trade. Now, it has five paid employees, a social media guru and parttime volunteers. The shop wanted the move on Sunday to be a special event. “It was a lovely way of including everyone and get the whole community involved,” Ms. Haynes said. “We’ve got a lot of good will in our community.” She said the bookstore was still moving. Opening day is scheduled for Saturday. A few weeks ago, after Facebook revealed that tens of millions of its users’ accounts had been exposed in a security breach, I began asking people in and around the tech industry a simple question: Should Mark Zuckerberg still be running Facebook? I’ll spare you the suspense. Just about everyone thought Mr. Zuckerberg was still the right man for the job, if not the only man for the job. This included people who currently work at Facebook, people who used to work at Facebook, financial analysts, venture capitalists, tech-skeptic activists, ardent critics of the company and its giddiest supporters. The consensus went like this: Even if Mr. Zuckerberg — as Facebook’s co-founder, chief executive, chairman and most powerful shareholder — bore most of the responsibility for the company’s cataclysmic recent history, he alone possessed the stature to fix it. More than one of his supporters told me it was bad faith to even broach the subject — that Mr. Zuckerberg’s indispensability was so plain that the only reason I might have to ask whether he should still run the company was the clicks I would get on this article. But even critics were not that excited about the idea of Mr. Zuckerberg’s removal. Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, an organization that fights monopoly power, argued that Facebook’s problems grew out of its business model and the legal and regulatory vacuum in which it has operated — not the man who runs it. “To be blunt, if we took Mark Zuckerberg out and we replaced him with Mahatma Gandhi, I don’t think the corporation would change in any significant way,” Mr. Lynn said. That few can imagine a Facebook without Mr. Zuckerberg, 34, underscores how unaccountable our largest tech companies have become. Mr. Zuckerberg, thanks to his own drive and brilliance, has become one of the most powerful unelected people in the world. Like an errant oil company or sugar-pumping food company, Facebook makes decisions that create huge consequences for society — and he has profited handsomely from the chaos. Yet because of Facebook’s ownership structure — in which Mr. Zuckerberg’s shares have 10 times the voting power of ordinary shares — he is omnipotent there, answering basically to no one. This fits a pattern. Over the last two decades, the largest tech companies have created a system in which executives suffer few personal or financial consequences for their mistakes. Big tech has turned founders into fixtures — when their companies are working well, they get all the credit, and when their companies are doing badly, they are the only heroes who can fix them. There’s another way to put this: For better or worse, Mr. Zuckerberg has become too big to fail. In America, it’s not unusual for executives to escape punishment for how they steer their corporations (see Wall Street after the 2008 financial crisis). Still, when companies step in it badly, there are often at least calls for their leaders’ dismissal. The chief executives of Equifax and Target were pushed out after data breaches. The chief executive of Wells Fargo was ousted after a scandal involving sham accounts. Even in Silicon Valley, where company founders are revered as moneylaying rainbow unicorns, there is some limit to corporate patience. In the 1980s, Apple fired Steve Jobs. Last year, Uber ousted Travis Kalanick, who was as closely aligned with his company’s culture as Mr. Zuckerberg is with his. Facebook’s problems have not reached the level of lawlessness we saw at Uber, but they have been far more consequential. Besides the breach, Facebook has been implicated in a global breakdown of democracy, including its role as a vector for Russian disinformation during the 2016 American presidential election. Investigators for the United Nations have said Facebook was instrumental to genocide in Myanmar; it has also been tied to violence in India, South Sudan and Sri Lanka. There have been privacy scandals (Cambridge Analytica most recently), advertising scandals (discriminatory ads, fishy metrics), multiple current inquiries by the United States government and an admission that using Facebook can be detrimental to your mental health. Even though Mr. Zuckerberg has apologized and vowed again and again and again to fix Facebook, the compa- ny’s fixes often need fixing. In the last week, reporters showed that the company’s recent move to clamp down on political ads has not worked: Vice News bought Facebook ads falsely stating that they were paid for by Vice President Mike Pence and the Islamic State group. So given such failures, another question might be: Why haven’t any heads rolled at Facebook? Although there have been some high-profile defections — the co-founders of WhatsApp, Instagram and Oculus, all companies bought by Facebook, left in the last few months — Mr. Zuckerberg’s most loyal executives have been with him through thick and thin, many for more than a decade. If Facebook admits now that its problems were caused by a too-idealistic, move-fast culture, and if it is conceding now that its culture must change, how can we be sure that’s happening if most of the people who run Facebook remain the same? When I asked Facebook about this, the company argued that things were changing. It just hired Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain, as head of global affairs — a move that the company said imbued it with a serious outsider’s perspective. The social network also put me on the phone with a top executive who argued boisterously for Mr. Zuckerberg’s leadership, but declined to do so on the record. The executive explained that fixing Facebook would involve deep costs. The company is hiring more people to review content, for example, and it might have to slow down some of its most ambitious projects to address its impact on the world. The executive argued that Mr. Zuckerberg’s total domination of Facebook’s equity, plus the reverence in which employees hold him, allowed him to weather the financial consequences of these changes better than any other leader. Facebook’s stock price plunged nearly 20 percent on a single day this summer after it reported slowing revenue growth and increased operational costs. This week, Facebook repeated its slower-growth warning. A “professional C.E.O.,” one without such a huge stake in the company, would be tempted to try the easy way out, the executive suggested. But Mr. Zuckerberg was free to do what’s right. Mr. Zuckerberg’s supporters also argued that he has shown a deep capacity to understand and address Facebook’s problems. After the company went public in 2012, its stock ANDREW HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS Mark Zuckerberg may alone have the stature to fix Facebook’s problems. price languished for months because it had no plan to make money from consumers’ shift to mobile devices. “Mark would tell you that he was too late in understanding the importance of mobile — but when that became apparent, Mark understood its gravity and he understood how to fix it,” said Don Graham, a former Facebook board member and a former publisher of The Washington Post. “He changed the direction of that company incredibly fast, in detail, not by one action but by 20 actions — and if you looked at the quarter-by-quarter numbers of what percentage of Facebook’s revenue was coming from mobile, I couldn’t believe how fast it changed.” The question at Facebook now is whether Mr. Zuckerberg has similarly seen the light on its current problems. He has said fixing Facebook was his personal challenge for 2018. “I think he has demonstrably failed over the last two years, and the reason he’s failed is because he’s unaccountable,” said Sandy Parakilas, a former Facebook employee who is now chief strategy officer for the Center of Humane Technology, an activist organization. “Given a scenario where shareholders and board members had more influence, it’s hard to imagine that there would not have been changes faster.” One fix for Facebook might be to give the board greater power over the company. Trillium Asset Management, an investment firm, recently put forward a shareholder resolution supported by several state funds that would require Mr. Zuckerberg to step down as Facebook’s chairman, though he would still maintain majority voting control of the company. “I think by taking the step to relinquish the position of the board chair, it’s a very important structural change so that he would not have a completely free hand to muscle his way through decisions,” said Jonas Kron, a Trillium senior vice president. A Facebook spokesman said the company had not yet taken a position on the resolution. In the past, similar measures have been voted down by Mr. Zuckerberg and his allies. Which leaves us here: Either Mr. Zuckerberg fixes Facebook or no one does. That’s the choice we face, like it or not. .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 7 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION business PHOTOGRAPHS BY ATUL LOKE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Harley-Davidson owners, left, gathered for a ride, right, on the outskirts of Mumbai, India, that a local Harley club organized in October. President Trump’s single-minded focus on Harleys has mystified trade experts in both countries. In U.S.-India trade, Trump sees only Harley MUMBAI, INDIA But the two countries face deadlines on bigger issues like food and oil tariffs BY VINDU GOEL When it comes to trade, it often seems that India and the United States are playing a perplexing game of multidimensional chess. On Friday, for example, India will decide whether to impose or again delay tariffs on American almonds, apples, walnuts and processed metal products in retaliation for the Trump administration’s decision in March to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Next week, President Trump and his advisers will have to decide whether to penalize India for failing to abide by his Sunday deadline for all countries to stop importing oil from Iran. “The sanctions threat and the tariffs are in many ways linked,” said Sreeram Chaulia, dean of the school of international affairs at O. P. Jindal Global University outside New Delhi. Yet Mr. Trump has voiced little interest in such policy questions or the rounds of negotiations that have kept the two countries from an all-out trade war. Instead, he has been publicly riveted by one small pawn in the game: India’s tariffs on a few hundred high-end Harley-Davidson motorcycles sold in India each year. Three times this year when Mr. Trump brought up the American trade relationship with India, he complained about the import duties — currently 50 percent — that India levies on Harleys and other foreign-made motorcycles. “You send a motorcycle into India, there’s a 100 percent tariff,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference in early October, misstating the rate. “Who’s going to buy it? It costs you so much. Now, they have already reduced that substantially, but it’s still too high.” Mr. Trump’s single-minded focus on Harleys has mystified trade experts in both countries. “Harley-Davidson is not going to erase the trade deficit,” Mr. Chaulia said. In the context of the $126.2 billion in overall trade between the two countries, Harleys are not even a rounding error. Passenger jets, oil and gas, gemstones, and foods like almonds and chickpeas are far more important products. Most of the 3,000 Harleys sold in India last year did not incur any tariffs. That’s because they were cheaper, low-powered models made in a factory outside New Delhi. Even many of the fancier bikes sold in India were assembled from kits of imported parts, which are taxed at 15 percent, not 50 percent. Harley-Davidson’s biggest problem in India is a lack of demand. Harleys are bulky and heat up a rider’s legs, making them a poor fit for the country’s traffic-choked roads and sweltering climate. And they are expensive. With an average annual income of $1,700, people in India overwhelmingly favor small motorcycles, some of which cost less than $1,000. Harley’s big cruisers cost more than most cars, with its top model exceeding $87,000 in Mumbai after all taxes and licensing fees. Darryl Mathias, operations manager for the Mumbai dealership, Seven Islands Harley-Davidson, said sales had dropped about 50 percent in the past two years. He blamed rising gasoline prices and the Indian government’s efforts to crack down on cash transactions more than the tariffs. “People don’t want to show their wealth,” he said. American officials say the president initially seized on the Harley tariffs after the Milwaukee company’s chief executive, Matthew Levatich, complained to him about them. When Mr. Trump raised the issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi this year, India dropped the tariffs to 50 percent from 75 percent. Harley-Davidson executives declined interview requests. In a statement, the company said it “supports President Trump’s efforts to lower tariffs and make American manufacturers more competitive.” Indian and American government officials also declined to elaborate about the trade relationship, citing active negotiations and the pending decisions on tariffs and sanctions. For most officials in the two countries, the trade relationship is much more complicated than just motorcycles. The United States and India have been arguing over trade since the Obama administration, when they tangled over American exports of eggs and solar panels to India as well as India’s weak protections for foreign intellectual property such as drug formulas. Trade hawks in the Trump administration such as Robert E. Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, have made the $27.3 billion trade deficit in goods and services with India a key issue. American dairy farmers, for example, complain that they do not have fair access to India’s markets because of high tariffs and India’s requirement that all milk comes from cows that have not been fed the internal organs of other animals. That milk certification is important to Hindus, many of whom are vegetarians, but many American farmers cannot meet it. “Harley-Davidson is not going to erase the trade deficit.” Silicon Valley companies including Google and Facebook are also pressing the United States government to help them dilute or fend off India’s proposed data protection laws, which would limit the use of data collected about Indians and limit the transfer of data outside the country. “We need to have reciprocal trade,” Gilbert B. Kaplan, the American under secretary of commerce for international trade, said at a conference hosted by the U.S.-India Business Council in Mumbai in September. This year, India irked American companies by increasing tariffs on products as varied as shoes and mobile phones to help balance its budget and stem a fall in the value of the rupee. Separately, the country announced that it would raise tariffs on 29 categories of American goods, including nuts, apples and finished metal products, in response to Mr. Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. The items targeted influential industries such as almond growers, who last year shipped $651 million of the nuts to India, their largest market. But India deferred the start of the tariffs from June to September and then to Nov. 2. The government may well delay the tariffs again, Mr. Chaulia said, to assess the outcome of Tuesday’s midterm elections in the United States and what effect that would have on the American negotiating position. India, for its part, wants the United States to reduce tariffs on its exports of clothing and textiles, for which it pays higher duties than neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. The Modi administration is also adamant about maintaining its hefty subsidies for homegrown agricultural products to court Indian farmers, who are a key voting bloc. Looming over everything are geopolitical concerns. In addition to continuing oil purchases from Iran, Mr. Modi signed a deal with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, on Oct. 5 to buy Russian S-400 antiaircraft missile systems. The $5.2 billion purchase violates American trade sanctions against Russia and will eventually result in penalties for India unless Mr. Trump approves a waiver. Officials in the State and Defense Departments are urging Mr. Trump to give India some leeway on both issues as part of an effort to forge a closer military and diplomatic partnership against China in the region. India has already reduced its reliance on Iranian oil, they argue, and the American defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hoping to land a military jet order from India that could be worth $15 billion. Trade experts predict that neither country will be quick to antagonize the other. “Under no circumstance would the Indian government give up its close relationship with the U.S. government,” said Biswajit Dhar, a professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi who has represented the Indian government on trade issues and formerly served on the board of the ExportImport Bank of India. Mr. Chaulia said India was also clear about its economic commitment to Iran. India has invested heavily there, including hundreds of millions of dollars in the seaport of Chabahar in southeastern Iran. The Trump administration wants a regime change in Iran — and India does not, he said. Eliminating the Harley tariffs is a way to ease the trade drama and please the American president, Mr. Chaulia said. “All Trump needs is to declare a win,” he said. “He doesn’t care about the nittygritty.” Alan Rappeport and Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington, and Maria Abi-Habib from New Delhi. Ayesha Venkataraman contributed research. There’s money in conspiracy theories, and media outlets are after it Jim Rutenberg MEDIATOR You don’t have to go deep into the internet to find the baseless conspiracies that provided a backdrop for mass murder in Pittsburgh and the recent pipe-bomb mailings to Barack Obama, the Clintons, George Soros and CNN. They are served up in plain sight, for profit, at airport bookstores, at movietheater chains and on cable television. They come by way of publishing houses like Hachette and Penguin Random House; film distributors like Universal Home Studios and Lionsgate; theater chains like AMC and Cinemark; and 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News. Those companies have all helped feed a segment of the media business that should be called what it is — the Incitement Industry. It rakes in profits by serving up agitprop that targets liberals, Democrats and “deep state” operatives who are said to be plotting to destroy America for the benefit of darker-skinned migrants or a shadowy consortium of elites. You can see this kind of thing in the pages of “Liars, Leakers and Liberals” by the Fox News opinion host Jeanine Pirro. Published in July by Center Street, a division of the Hachette Book Group, Ms. Pirro’s book lays out “the globalist, open-border oligarchy” that, the author asserts, is seeking to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election. “The perpetrators of this anti-American plot include, but are not limited to, the leadership at the F.B.I., the C.I.A., N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and perhaps even the FISA courts,” she writes, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. ANDY KROPA/INVISION, VIA ANDY KROPA /INVISION/AP has written that the F.B.I., C.I.A., Democratic Party and others are part of an anti-American plot. JEANINE PIRRO “Liars, Leakers and Liberals” has spent 13 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Another recent best seller in the same vein, “Resistance Is Futile!” by the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter, was published by Sentinel, an imprint of the publishing giant Penguin Random House. It argues that the “resistance” that sprang up in the wake of President Trump’s election is “nothing less than a coup.” And it lights into a conveniently vague villain — “the media” — in a chapter titled “For Democracy to Live, We Must Kill the Media.” “The media’s position is that they’re allowed to engage in lies, deception and even illegal acts to swing an election,” Ms. Coulter writes. A similar point of view characterizes the films of Dinesh D’Souza, the polemicist who had pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions in 2014, only to be pardoned by President Trump this year. Moviegoers did not have to go out of their way to catch Mr. D’Souza’s most recent effort, “Death of a Nation.” The film had a wide release last summer, playing in more than 1,000 theaters, including those belonging to the AMC and Cinemark chains. LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS WILLY SANJUAN/INVISION, VIA WILLY SANJUAN/INVISION/AP argued in her book that the resistance to President Trump was nothing less than a coup. ANN COULTER The film makes the case that the Nazi platform was similar to that of today’s Democratic Party. Prominent among its villains is George Soros, who was allegedly sent a pipe bomb by Cesar Sayoc Jr., who also is accused of sending similar packages to Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama. “The progressive Democrats are the true racists,” the film’s narrator intones. “They are the true fascists. They want to steal our income. They want to steal our earnings and our wealth and our freedom and our lives.” The PG-13 rated film had a box office take of roughly $6 million, which paled next to the $33 million brought in by “Obama’s America,” a 2012 film by Mr. D’Souza that claimed Mr. Obama, as the president, sought to destroy the United States from within to sate the “anti-Colonialism” impulses of the African father he hardly knew. “Death of a Nation” will have a second life on the streaming platforms Amazon, iTunes and Google Play, as well as on DVD, sold at Walmart, Best Buy and other retailers. The distribution is being handled by Quality Flix and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment. The Incitement Industry can also be a driving force at Fox News, which has made the case in his film that the Nazi platform was similar to that of today’s Democratic Party. DINESH D’SOUZA lately featured guests who have asserted without evidence that Mr. Soros financed the migrant caravan making its slow way toward the southern border of the United States. Someone who shared that view was the man charged with killing 11 congregants during a hate-driven shooting rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. The Fox Business Network opinion show “Lou Dobbs Tonight” was the setting for two particularly glaring assertions. Mr. Dobbs played the friendly interviewer as Chris Farrell, a director of a right-wing activist group called Judicial Watch, said that “the Soros-occupied State Department” was involved in the migrant caravan. After his appearance on Mr. Dobbs’s program, Fox News condemned the statement and said that Mr. Farrell would no longer appear on the network. Another guest on “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” the author Sidney Powell, likened the caravan to an “invasion” that was leading to “diseases spreading across the country that are causing polio-like paralysis of our children.” In that case, Mr. Dobbs pushed back, saying, “You can’t very well blame that disease on illegal immigrants.” The hysteria led Bill Kristol, the conservative Republican who was once a regular on the Rupert Murdochowned Fox News, to tell Brian Stelter of CNN that it was time for Fox’s owners and investors to take a hard look at the rhetoric spilling out of its news channel. And the Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, who has become something of an in-house ombudsman for the network, told his viewers, “There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing to worry about.” (Representatives for Fox News and its parent company, 21st Century Fox, did not comment for this article.) There is certainly enough hyperbole to go around. Earlier this week the GQ correspondent Julia Ioffe apologized for saying on CNN that Mr. Trump had “radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.” Violent acts, it should be noted, are the responsibility of those who commit them, and the perpetrators have various ideological motivations. But the grist for emotionally disturbed or just plain violent people has never seemed so readily available. “It might be fun or profitable for people to take up a megaphone against others,” said James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong in Washing- ton, the site of the internet’s “pizzagate” conspiracy. “The fact is, it takes just one individual to decide to take violent action.” Mr. Alefantis’s livelihood suffered last year when a gunman — who was supposedly “investigating” the theory that the restaurant housed a Clintonrun child prostitution ring — fired an AR-15 rifle at his place of business. Alex Jones of Infowars got rich by promoting conspiracies like that one, as The New York Times has reported. While he is in his own category, Mr. Jones got his message out to a mass audience through the tech giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Apple — which eventually cut ties with him under intensifying criticism of their failure to curb the spread of misinformation. That, in turn, fed complaints among some conservatives that Silicon Valley, under pressure from liberals and the news media, was guilty of thought-policing. But where is the line between falsehoods that may incite violence and good, old-fashioned American political hyperbole? And should book publishers and entertainment companies be more careful about the products they send out into the world in a tense sociopolitical atmosphere? “I don’t want some publisher telling me that something is beyond bounds,” Mr. Kristol told me in an interview. “I’m a libertarian on points of view and even interpretations of history.” But after noting that conspiracy theories of recent vintage have whipped up fear and hatred, Mr. Kristol added, “There are things that normal fact-checking would rule out. It’s not a matter of ideology; it’s truth.” I asked Hachette, the company behind “Liars, Leakers and Liberals,” whether Ms. Pirro’s statement that Mr. Soros has “an agenda to destroy this country and the capitalist system” had passed muster with editors and factcheckers. I got no answer. Sentinel, the division of Penguin Random House that published Ms. Coulter’s recent best seller, was at least willing to engage. Its publisher, Adrian Zackheim, told me the author’s views were “expressions of opinion.” Maybe it’s time to stop labeling her book “nonfiction.” .. 8 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION well Get the brain going with a 10-minute walk Fitness GRETCHEN REYNOLDS STUART BRADFORD Breast-feeding appears to reset the body’s metabolism after pregnancy, improving glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity, burning calories and mobilizing stores of fat. Breast-feeding is good for mothers Long-term health benefits are many, but too few women get the message BY RONI CARYN RABIN Most women know breast-feeding is good for their babies’ health. But doctors and midwives rarely tell moms-tobe that it’s also good for nursing mothers. Nursing mothers reduce their relative risk of breast cancer by 4.3 percent for every 12 months they breast-feed, in addition to a relative decrease of 7 percent for each birth. Breast-feeding is particularly protective against some of the most aggressive tumors, called hormone receptor-negative or triple-negative tumors, which are more common among African-American women, studies show. It also lowers the risk by onethird for women who are prone because of an inherited mutation in a gene associated with breast cancer. Women who breast-feed are also less likely to develop ovarian cancer, Type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, and they may have improved cardiovascular health. Yet only 16 percent of mothers surveyed — or fewer than one in five — said their doctors had told them that breast- feeding is good for mother as well as baby, according to a study published this month in Breastfeeding Medicine. “We have an ounce of prevention that could save lives,” said Dr. Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, the paper’s senior author and an associate professor of medical oncology at Ohio State University. “But are we fully educating the mothers when they make this difficult choice? Because it is not an easy choice.” While companies market infant formula by claiming their products are effective substitutes for breast milk, Dr. Ramaswamy said, “formula is not going to help women live longer and be there for their families.” The new study surveyed 724 women ages 18 to 50 who had given birth to at least one child. The vast majority of them had breast-fed. Just over half knew before they gave birth that breast-feeding reduced the risk of breast cancer, and over a third of those said the information influenced their decision to breast-feed. But only 120 of the women said that their health care providers had informed them about the implications for their own long-term health. Most of those who knew about the health advantages to nursing mothers had gleaned the information from popular media or the internet. And these women tended to breast-feed for much longer — 13 months on average — than women who did not know about the health implications, who breast-fed for only nine months on average. While 60 percent of white women surveyed knew breast-feeding could cut their breast cancer risk, only 47 percent of the African-American women knew, and 54 percent of women of other or unknown race knew. Breast-feeding mothers are less likely to develop breast and ovarian cancers, Type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Among racial groups in the United States, African-American mothers have the lowest rates of breast-feeding and are least likely to nurse for at least six months, according to government health statistics. Sixty percent have breast-fed, but only 28 percent were still breast-feeding at six months. In comparison, 77 percent of white mothers, 80 percent of Hispanic mothers and 86 percent of Asian mothers have breast-fed, with rates of breastfeeding at six months at 45 percent, 46 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Scientists do not entirely understand why lactation helps prevent breast cancer, but they say that the breasts un- dergo changes during pregnancy as they develop more milk ducts in preparation for breast-feeding. The breasts eventually go through a process called involution that returns them to their pre-pregnancy state and involves a large amount of cell death and tissue remodeling. That transition can occur slowly through gradual weaning or abruptly if there is no breast-feeding or only brief breast-feeding. When it happens abruptly, it creates an inflammatory condition that is conducive to cancer, Dr. Ramaswamy said. Dr. Marisa Weiss, the founder of the website BreastCancer.org, who has done research in this area, often describes pregnancy and lactation as a bat mitzvah for the breasts, saying that breast-feeding “forces the breasts to finally grow up and get a job, and make milk, and show up for work every day, and stop fooling around.” That maturation process causes changes in the milk ducts that make the breast more resistant to cancer. Breast-feeding also appears to reset the body’s metabolism after pregnancy, improving glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity, burning calories and mobilizing stores of fat that have accumulated during pregnancy, which may explain why women who breast-fed have lower rates of diabetes and other problems. Ten minutes of mild, almost languorous exercise can immediately alter how certain parts of the brain communicate and coordinate with one another and improve memory function, according to an encouraging new neurological study. The findings suggest that exercise does not need to be prolonged or intense to benefit the brain and that the effects can begin far more quickly than many of us might expect. We already know that exercise can change our brains and minds. The evidence is extensive and growing. Multiple studies with mice and rats have found that when the animals run on wheels or treadmills, they develop more new brain cells than if they remain sedentary. Many of the new cells are clustered in the hippocampus, a portion of the brain that is essential for memory creation and storage. The active animals also perform better on tests of learning and memory. Equivalent experiments examining brain tissue are not possible in people. But some past studies have shown that people who exercise regularly tend to have a larger, healthier hippocampus than those who do not, especially as they grow older. Even one bout of exercise, research suggests, can help most of us to focus and learn better than if we sat still. But these studies usually have involved moderate or vigorous exercise, such as jogging or brisk walking and often for weeks or months at a time. Whether a single, brief spurt of very easy exercise will produce desirable changes in the brain has remained unclear. So for the new study, published in September in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Tsukuba in Japan turned to a group of college students. They recruited students in part because bright, healthy, young men and women should have brains and memories that are functioning well. For an experiment to produce improvements in their brain function, its effects would need to be potent. The scientists invited 36 of the students to the lab and had them sit quietly on a stationary bicycle for 10 minutes or, on a separate visit, pedal the bicycle at a pace so gentle it barely raised their heart rates. In technical terms, the exercise was performed at about 30 percent of each volunteer’s maximum heart rate. By comparison, brisk walking should raise someone’s heart rate to about 50 percent of his or her maximum. So this exercise was very easy. It also was short, lasting for only 10 minutes. Immediately after each session of the sitting or slow pedaling, the students completed a computerized memory test during which they would see a brief picture of, for instance, a tree, followed by a variety of other images and then a new image of either the same tree or a similar one. The students would press buttons to show whether they thought each image was new or the same as an earlier shot. The test is difficult, since many of the images closely resemble one another. It requires rapid, deft shuffling through recent memories to decide whether a picture is new or known. Next, the scientists had each student repeat this sequence — riding or sitting on the bike for 10 minutes and then completing memory testing — but the testing now took place inside an M.R.I. machine that scanned the young people’s brains while they responded to the images. Then the researchers compared results. The effects of the exercise, undemanding as it was, were clear. The young people were better at remembering images after they had ridden the bike, especially when the images most closely resembled one another. In other words, the harder their memoParts of the ries had to strain, the better they perbrain were formed after the better exercise. connected More unexpected, than when their brains also the students worked differently had not after they had ridexercised. den. The M.R.I. scans showed that portions of each student’s hippocampus lit up in synchronized fashion with parts of the brain associated with learning, indicating that these physically separate parts of the brain were better connected now than when the students had not first exercised. And the greater the coordination between the disparate parts of the brain, the better the students performed on the memory test. “It was exciting to see those effects occurring so quickly and after such light exercise,” says Michael Yassa, the director of the Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine, and senior co-author of the new study along with Hideaki Soya of the University of Tsukuba. The findings show that exercise can change people’s brains and minds right away, he said, without requiring weeks of working out. Even better, the exertion required can be so slight as to allow almost anyone, even those who are out of shape or possibly disabled, to complete the exercise. “We are not talking about marathons,” he said. “It looks like people can improve their memories with a short walk or an easy session of something like yoga or tai chi.” What’s all this about journaling? the authenticity available to us in that time frame.” BY HAYLEY PHELAN Once the domain of teenage girls and the literati, journaling has become a hallmark of the so-called self-care movement, right up there with meditation. And for good reason: Scientific studies have shown it to be essentially a panacea for modern life. There are the obvious benefits, like an increase in mindfulness, memory and communication skills. But studies have also found that writing can lead to better sleep, a stronger immune system, more selfconfidence and a higher I.Q. Research out of New Zealand suggests that the practice may even help wounds heal faster. How is this possible? James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin who is considered a pioneer of writing therapy, said there wasn’t one answer. “It’s a whole cascade of things,” he said. Labeling emotions and acknowledging traumatic events — both natural outcomes of journaling — have a known positive effect on people, Dr. Pennebaker said, and are often part of traditional talk therapy. At the same time, writing is fundamentally an organizational system. Keeping a journal, according to Dr. Pennebaker, helps to organize an event in our mind and make sense of trauma. When we do that, our working memory improves, since our brains are freed from the taxing job of processing that experience, and we sleep better. This in turn improves our immune system and our moods. WHAT DO I WRITE ABOUT? This is often the first question a budding journal writer might ask. In some ways, though, it’s the most misguided — one thing journaling has taught me is that the mind is a surprising place, and you often don’t know what it may be hiding until you start knocking around in there. Writing in your journal is the only way to find out what you should be writing about. Julia Cameron, author of “The Art- WILL IT CHANGE MY LIFE? THE NEW YORK TIMES ist’s Way,” recommends “three pages of longhand writing, strictly stream-ofconsciousness,” as soon as one wakes. They are “not meant to be art. Or even writing.” They need not be smart or funny or particularly deep — in fact, it’s better if they’re not. Ms. Cameron encourages practitioners to think of them as “brain drain,” a way to expel “all that angry, petty, whiny stuff” that “eddies through our subconscious and muddies our days.” “I’d like to say here that morning pages differ from conventional journaling, in which we set a topic and pursue it,” Ms. Cameron said. “In morning pages, we do not set a topic. It is as though we have A.D.D.” — attention deficit disorder — “jumping from topic to topic, gathering insights and directions from many quarters.” But Dr. Pennebaker’s research has found that journaling about traumatic or disturbing experiences specifically has the most measurable effect on our overall well-being. In a 1988 study outlined in his book “Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotion,” students were randomly assigned to write about either traumatic experiences or superficial topics for four days in a row. Six weeks later, those who had explored trauma reported more positive moods and fewer illnesses than the others. HOW OFTEN AND WHEN? Dr. Pennebaker’s research has found that even a one-time, 15-to-30-minute session of focused journal writing could be beneficial. In fact, he said, he was not “a big fan of journaling every day.” “One of the interesting problems of writing too much, especially if you’re going through a difficult a time, is that writing becomes more like rumination, and that’s the last thing in the world you need,” he said. “My recommendation is to think of expressive writing as a life course correction, as opposed to something you have commit to doing every day for the rest of your life.” If you’re distressed about something, Dr. Pennebaker advises, write for 15 to 20 minutes a day about it, for three to four days. If there is no benefit, stop. Techies can take heart in knowing that, contrary to the romantic ideal, typing out journal entries on a laptop or even on a phone can yield effects that are just as positive as writing by hand. The point is simply to get started. “Some people like writing with their nondominant hand,” Dr. Pennebaker said. “Others find talking to a tape recorder works too.” Over the years, I have switched up my process here and there, even embarking on an overly ambitious plan involving color-coded pens. The one I’ve come back to again and again, however, is closest to what Ms. Cameron advocates: I write three to five pages every morning by hand. For her, the timing and frequency is essential to a beneficial practice. “Jungians tell us we have about a 45-minute window before our ego’s defenses are in place in the morning,” she said. “Writing promptly upon awakening, we utilize Journaling may sound hokey to some. But it can be one of the most useful and cost-effective tools we have to forge a better, more emotionally and mentally healthy life. As Dr. Pennebaker said of his research: “I’m not a granola-crunching kind of guy. I got into journaling because I’m interested in what makes people tick.” Ms. Cameron’s book, on the other hand, is steeped in the kind of earnest spirituality that New Age skeptics will no doubt bristle at. Yet one of the quotations that has stuck with me the most is straightforward and practical: “It is very difficult to complain about a situation morning after morning, month after month, without being moved to constructive action.” When I started journaling, I was unhappily married and dissatisfied with my career. I had no idea what would make me happy. The practice provided me with an important outlet for the anxiety that had come to paralyze me at odd hours each day. Still, I remained unconvinced by Ms. Cameron’s grander claims about how journaling could change one’s life. And yet, today, as I write this, just two years later, my life has completely changed: I split from my partner of 10 years; began a new, fulfilling relationship; enrolled in a master of fine arts program; rekindled my freelance writing career; and am planning a move to Los Angeles. I don’t know how journaling helped me make these changes. Perhaps, as Dr. Pennebaker may suggest, it simply allowed me to purge some of my anxiety, leading to a better night’s sleep and more energy to accomplish the task. Or maybe, as Ms. Cameron would say, it put me in contact with my very own spiritual guide. In the end, though, I’m not sure I care how it worked. The point is, for me, it did. .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 9 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION Opinion I thought the web would stop hate, not spread it This is what the internet has come to: thugs like Mohammed bin Salman funding tech companies to host the vitriol of thugs like Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers. Kara Swisher Contributing Writer When I was a reporter at The Washington Post back in the pre-Internet days, there was a man who would write me a letter every time I had a story that had a name in it that he perceived to be Jewish. His anti-Semitic screeds were intricate and obsessive. He would cut my article out of the paper, highlight the names, and in a chicken-scratch scrawl write endless lines of venomous bile about how the various businesspeople he noted were secretly plotting to take over the world and kill the “real” Americans. It was riveting — the care he took was clearly apparent — and nauseating at the same time. It frightened me, but it was only a letter, sent only to me. Fast forward to today, when everyone has the ability to see the toxic online stylings of Cesar Sayoc, the Trump supporter who has been arrested and charged for a series of mail bombs that he sent to CNN and a list of prominent Democrats. He was all over social media spewing his bile, which escalated on Twitter and Facebook starting in 2016. It was the same with another radicalized man with issues, Robert Bowers, who has been charged in the murder of 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. His preferred outlet was an internet underbelly site called Gab, an alt-right platform with an adorable name and a dead-ugly purpose. As The New York Times’s Kevin Roose noted, Gab was the “last refuge for internet scoundrels — a place where those with views considered too toxic for the mainstream could congregate and converse freely.” Internet companies like Stripe, GoDaddy and Joyent have now “deplatformed” Gab, as they did with Alex Jones this year. It took the Bowers attack for them to notice exactly who their customer was. Of course, they said their usual so-sorrys for facilitating this dreck. And Twitter did yet another elaborate apology dance for not removing Mr. Sayoc from the platform after at least one complaint about his behavior. But it takes only seconds to draw a line between the public posts of these internet goblins and their real-life attacks. What is happening on social networks and across digital communications platforms is disturbing and ever metastasizing. And preventable. I wrote my first column for The Times on this, months ago. Let me say it again: Social media platforms — and Facebook and Twitter are as guilty of this as Gab is — are designed so that the awful travels twice as fast as the good. And they are operating with sloppy disregard of the consequences of that awful speech, leading to disasters that they then have to clean up after. KAGENMI/ISTOCK, VIA GETTY IMAGES And they are doing a very bad job of that, too, because they are unwilling to pay the price to make needed fixes. Why? because draining the cesspool would mean losing users, and that would hurt the bottom line. Consider this: On Monday, New York Times reporters easily found almost 12,000 anti-Semitic messages that had been uploaded to Instagram in the wake of the synagogue attack. That was after the killings. And please do not saunter over to YouTube or Twitter or Reddit if you want any relief, as you will only find more of the same. The negligence does not stop at the platforms but includes who pays for these platforms, which is how I found myself at a dinner party recently where the guests were ranking Silicon Valley funders from most to least toxic: Russia, China, Kuwait, Qatar, along with various dicey high-net-worth individuals across the globe. “They are all linked to awful behav- ior in some way if you are being really honest with yourself,” a well-known entrepreneur said. “Thank goodness for Singapore.” (Apparently “Crazy Rich Asians” had been good for the What is brands of funds tied happening to the Singapore on social government, like networks and Temasek and GIC.) across digital And of course there is Mohammed communications platforms bin Salman, the crown prince of is disturbing Saudi Arabia, who and ever has flooded tech metastasizing. with Saudi investAnd ments. His glossy preventable. reform sheen has worn thin in the wake of the brutal murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at what appears certainly to have been the behest of the government Prince Mohammed heads — or more precisely, beheads. His government also jails activists and decimates Yemen with a war, but it was only a few months ago that he was squired around Google headquarters by Sergey Brin. In hindsight, the obsequious reception now looks unfortunate, to say the least. So where are we now? Far too much of the money social media companies are using to host thugs like Mr. Sayoc and Mr. Bowers was paid for by thugs like Prince Mohammed. And, other than some tut-tutting about the horror of it all, there are no signs that the industry that considers itself the most woke on the planet is thinking of giving the money back or talking about not taking it in the future. I cannot tell you how sad that is to write, because when I first saw the internet way back when, I hoped that it would help eliminate the attitudes that had fueled those horrible letters to me. I naïvely thought a lone man sending a reporter a missive of malevolence could not find such refuge on the wide- open internet, where his hate would be seen for what it was and denounced and exorcised. I was obviously very wrong. Instead, the internet gave people like him the space to grow and thrive. Tech made no real rules, claiming the freedom from any strictures would be O.K. in what is the greatest experiment in human communications ever. We have no idea how to deal with this situation, except to watch it play out over and over again, and allow it to kill us cell by cell. Or not. “You must live life with the full knowledge that your actions will remain,” Zadie Smith wrote. “We are creatures of consequence.” We have met the creature and it is a monster. I shudder to think what the consequences will be. is the editor at large for the technology news website Recode and producer of the Recode Decode podcast and Code Conference. KARA SWISHER What if we’re all coming back? The prospect of being reborn as a poor person in a world ravaged by climate change could lead us to very different political decisions. Michelle Alexander I can’t say that I believe in reincarnation, but I understand why some people do. In fact, I had a bizarre experience as a teenager that made me wonder if I had known someone in a past life. I was walking to school one day, lost in thought. I turned the corner onto a wide, tree-lined street and noticed a man on the other side heading my direction. For an instant, we held each other’s gaze and a startling wave of excitement and recognition washed over me. We spontaneously ran toward each other, as if to embrace a long-lost friend, relative or lover. But just as we were close enough to see the other’s face, we were both jolted by the awareness that we didn’t actually know each other. We stood in the middle of the street, bewildered. I mumbled, “I’m so sorry — I thought I knew you.” Equally embarrassed, he replied: “Oh, my God, this is so strange. What’s happening right now?” We backed away awkwardly — me, a teenage black girl; he, a middle-aged white man. I never saw him again. The incident shook me deeply. This was not a case of mistaken identity. Something profound and mysterious happened and we both knew it. Still, I’m not among the 33 percent of Americans (including 29 percent of Christians) who believe in reincarnation. Lately, though, I’ve been thinking that if more of us did believe we were coming back, it could change everything. At first, I thought about reincarnation in the narrowest possible terms, wondering what future life I’d earn if karma proved real. It’s a worrisome thing to contemplate. It’s easier to speculate about what kind of future lives other people deserve. Maybe Bull Connor — that white supremacist Alabama politician who ordered that black schoolchildren protesting segregation be attacked with police dogs and fire hoses — has already been born again as a black child in a neighborhood lacking jobs and decent schools but filled with police officers who shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe he’s now subjected to the very forms of bigotry, terror and structural racism that he once gleefully inflicted on others. This kind of thought experiment is obviously dangerous, since it can tempt us to imagine that people have somehow earned miserable fates and deserve to suffer. But considering future lives can also be productive, challenging us to imagine that what we do or say in this life matters and might eventually catch up with us. Would we fail to respond with care and compassion to the immigrant at the border today if we thought we might find ourselves homeless, fleeing war and poverty, in the next life? Imagining ourselves in those shoes makes it harder to say: “Well, they’re not here legally. Let’s build a wall to keep those people out.” After all, one day “those people” might be you. Once I entered college, I found myself less interested in karma and more interested in politics. It occurred to me that if we’re born again at random, we can’t soothe ourselves with fantasies that we’ll come back as one of the precious few on the planet who live comfortably. We must face the fact that our destiny is inextricably linked to the fate of others. What kind of political, social and economic system would I want — and what would I fight for — if I knew I was coming back somewhere JOSH HANER/THE NEW YORK TIMES in the world but didn’t know where and didn’t know who I’d be? In law school, I discovered that I wasn’t the first to ponder this type of question. In his landmark 1971 book, “A Theory of Justice,” the political philosopher John Rawls urged his audience to imagine a wild scene: A group of people gathered to design their own future society behind “a veil of ignorance.” No one knows his or her place in society, class position or social status, “nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength and the like.” As Rawls put it, “If a man knew that he was wealthy, he might find it rational to advance the principle that various taxes for welfare measures be counted unjust; if he knew he was poor, he would most likely propose the contrary principle.” If denied basic information about one’s circumstances, Rawls predicted that important social goods, such as rights and liberties, power and opportunities, income and wealth, and conditions for self-respect would be “distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these values is to everyone’s advantage.” Back then, I was struck by how closely Rawls’s views mirrored my own. I now believe, however, that the veil of ignorance is quite distorted in an important respect. Rawls’s veil encourages us to imagine a scenario in which we’re equally likely to be rich or poor or born with natural talents or limitations. But the truth is, if we’re reborn in 50 years, there’s only a small chance that any of us would be rich or benefit from white privilege. Almost half the world — more than three billion people — live on less than $2.50 per day. At least 80 percent of humanity lives on less than $10 per day. Less than 7 percent of the world’s population has a college degree. The vast majority of the earth’s population is nonwhite, and roughly half are women. Unless radical change sweeps the globe, the chances are high that any of us would come back as a nonwhite woman living on less than $2.50 per day. And given what we now know about climate change, the chances are very good that we would find ourselves suffering as a result of natural disasters — hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts and floods — and enduring water and food shortages and refugee crises. This month, the world’s leading climate scientists released a report warning of catastrophic consequences as soon as 2040 if global warming increases at its current rate. Democratic politicians expressed alarm, yet many continue to accept campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry that is responsible for such a large percentage of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It’s nearly impossible to imagine that our elected officials would be so indifferent if they knew climate scientists were foretelling a future that they would have to live without any of the privileges they now enjoy. Rawls was right: True morality becomes possible only when we step outside the box of our perceived selfinterest and care for others as much as we care for ourselves. But rather than imagining a scenario in which we’re entirely ignorant of what the future holds, perhaps we ought to imagine that we, personally, will be born again into the world that we are creating today through our collective and individual choices. Who among us would fail to question capitalism or to demand a political system free from corporate cash if we knew that we’d likely live our next life as a person of color, earning less than $2.50 a day, in some part of the world ravaged by climate change while private corporations earn billions building prisons, detention centers and border walls for profit? Not I. And I’m willing to bet, neither would you. We don’t have to believe in reincarnation to fight for a world that we’d actually want to be born into. .. 10 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION opinion The neuroscience of hate speech A.G. SULZBERGER, Publisher DEAN BAQUET, Executive Editor MARK THOMPSON, Chief Executive Officer JOSEPH KAHN, Managing Editor STEPHEN DUNBAR-JOHNSON, President, International TOM BODKIN, Creative Director JEAN-CHRISTOPHE DEMARTA, Senior V.P., Global Advertising SUZANNE DALEY, Associate Editor ACHILLES TSALTAS, V.P., International Conferences JAMES BENNET, Editorial Page Editor HELEN KONSTANTOPOULOS, V.P., International Circulation JAMES DAO, Deputy Editorial Page Editor HELENA PHUA, Executive V.P., Asia-Pacific KATHLEEN KINGSBURY, Deputy Editorial Page Editor SUZANNE YVERNÈS, International Chief Financial Officer CHARLOTTE GORDON, V.P., International Consumer Marketing THE RAGE POISONING AMERICA After Pittsburgh, how to save a country that’s lost sight of the public good. What is going on in this country? Can’t we be safe in our homes, in our schools, in our most sacred places? Once again, Americans are left to ask each other these sorts of questions, after a gunman burst into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh on the Jewish Sabbath and opened fire on families in the contemplation of their faith. Armed with a semiautomatic rifle and three handguns, he killed 11 people and wounded six more, including four police officers. “Jews must die,” he was said to have shouted. The attack came a day after a man was arrested in Florida for mailing pipe bombs to politicians and journalists across the country. In both cases, the suspects had nourished their animus online, on social media platforms where they could easily connect with people who shared their hatreds. After the attack on Tree of Life, Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Times, “I’m afraid to say that we may be at the beginning of what has happened to Europe, the consistent anti-Semitic attacks.” “If it is not nipped in the bud,” he said, in a remark that should make every American pause and think, “I am afraid the worst is yet to come.” Anti-Semitic claims have acquired new energy online, to the point that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, recently cited one — that the Holocaust never actually happened — as an example of offensive but good-faith argument on his social-media platform. “I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in an interview with the journalist Kara Swisher. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.” He subsequently clarified that he “absolutely didn’t intend to defend the intent of people who deny” that, within living memory, Hitler’s Germany killed six million Jews as part of a systematic campaign to kill them all. Alongside anti-Semitism, anti-black hatred appears to be rising. It has been expressed recently not only in incidents in which white Americans have harassed black Americans for gardening, coming home, swimming, working or campaigning for public office, but in deadly attacks like the one by a bigot who shot two black people at a Kentucky grocery last week, after he tried but failed to enter a black church. What can be done? Certainly, common-sense gun safety regulation might make attacks like the one on Tree of Life synagogue less deadly — universal background checks, red-flag laws that take guns away from the mentally unstable, bans on high-capacity weapons like the AR-15 rifle that the alleged killer wielded. Measures like these would help contend with the hardware of hate. It is far harder to disable the software, the ideas that now spread so readily. Though Facebook should do much more to reject the lies and hate of its users, Mr. Zuckerberg is right to bridle at the notion that he should set himself up as the Grand Censor of American or global debate. “These issues are very challenging,” he said after the uproar over his comments about not policing Holocaust denial, “but I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech.” Good speech may not be enough in itself, but that doesn’t mean that American society couldn’t benefit from much more of it today, particularly from its leaders. So it was reassuring to hear President Trump condemn the attack in Pittsburgh, as he did the pipe bombs. And it was disappointing to see him immediately head back out on the campaign trail, as he did on Saturday, to disparage his opponents and critics all over again. As a candidate and as president Mr. Trump has failed to consistently, unequivocally reject bigotry, and he has even encouraged violence at some of his rallies. Mr. Trump is also setting a low, coarsening standard for how Americans should speak to and about one another. He has urged his supporters to think of his critics as traitors and enemies. Some Democratic leaders appear to be concluding that they will be suckers if they don’t adopt similar smashmouth tactics. The suspects in Pittsburgh, Florida and Kentucky are responsible for their own actions. Maniacs have always existed in dark crevices of American life, and no amount of public condemnation will ever stop them from developing poisonous ideas. But in this harrowing time, more good speech, from more good people, can remind other Americans of the sorts of values that have, so far, managed to contain the divisions in their country, of the moral imagination and empathy that Mr. Bowers evidently so feared. Richard A. Friedman Do politicians’ words, the president’s especially, matter? Since he has been in office, President Trump has relentlessly demonized his political opponents as evil and belittled them as stupid. He has called undocumented immigrants animals. His rhetoric has been a powerful contributor to our climate of hate, which is amplified by the right-wing media and virulent online culture. Of course, it’s difficult to prove that incendiary speech is a direct cause of violent acts. But humans are social creatures — including and perhaps especially the unhinged and misfits among us — who are easily influenced by the rage that is everywhere these days. Could that explain why just in the past two weeks we have seen the horrifying slaughter of 11 Jews in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, with the man arrested described as a rabid antiSemite, as well as what the authorities say was the attempted bombing of prominent Trump critics by an ardent Trump supporter? You don’t need to be a psychiatrist to understand that the kind of hate and fear-mongering that is the stock-intrade of Mr. Trump and his enablers can goad deranged people to action. But psychology and neuroscience can give us some important insights into the power of powerful people’s words. We know that repeated exposure to hate speech can increase prejudice, as a series of Polish studies confirmed Humans last year. It can also are social desensitize individucreatures who als to verbal agare easily gression, in part influenced by because it normalthe anger and izes what is usually socially condemned rage that are behavior. everywhere At the same time, these days. politicians like Mr. Trump who stoke anger and fear in their supporters provoke a surge of stress hormones, like cortisol and norepinephrine, and engage the amyg- BEN JONES dala, the brain center for threat. One study, for example, that focused on “the processing of danger” showed that threatening language can directly activate the amygdala. This makes it hard for people to dial down their emotions and think before they act. Mr. Trump has managed to convince his supporters that America is the victim and that we face an existential threat from imagined dangers like the migrant caravan and the “fake, fake disgusting news.” Were the men arrested in the synagogue shootings and bombing attacks listening? Robert Bowers, for example, apparently blamed Jews for helping transport members of the Central American migrant caravan. It seems he did not think the president was going far enough in protecting the country from invaders. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered,” he wrote online before the murderous rampage. And Cesar Sayoc Jr., accused of mailing bombs to CNN, echoed the president in a tweet: “More lies con job Propaganda bye failing failing CNN garbage.” But you don’t have to be this unhinged to be moved to violence by incendiary rhetoric. Just about any of us could be susceptible under the right conditions. Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton, and colleagues have shown that distrust of a out-group is linked to anger and impulses toward violence. This is particularly true when a society faces economic hardship and people are led to see outsiders as competitors for their jobs. Mina Cikara, a psychologist at Harvard and a co-author of that study, told me that “when a group is put on the defensive and made to feel threatened, they begin to believe that anything, including violence, is justified.” There is something else that Mr. Trump does to facilitate violence against those he dislikes: He dehumanizes them. “These aren't people,” he once said about undocumented immigrants suspected of gang ties. “These are animals.” Research by Dr. Cikara and others shows that when one group feels threatened, it makes it much easier to think about people in another group as less than human and to have little empathy for them — two psychological conditions that are conducive to violence. A 2011 study by Dr. Fiske and a colleague looked at “social cognition” — the ability to put oneself in someone else’s place and recognize “the other as a human being subject to moral treatment.” Subjects in the study were found to be so unempathetic toward drug addicts and homeless people that they found it difficult to imagine how those people thought or felt. Using brain M.R.I., researchers showed that images of members of dehumanized groups failed to activate brain regions implicated in normal social cognition and instead activated the subjects’ insula, a region implicated in feelings of disgust. FRIEDMAN, PAGE 11 Iran sanctions will hurt America Henry J. Farrell Abraham L. Newman During the war on terror, the United States quietly turned the world financial system into a hidden empire. The American government used the power of the dollar and its influence over obscure organizations such as the Swift financial messaging service to monitor what its adversaries and terrorists were doing and, in some cases, to cut entire states, such as North Korea, out of world financial flows. These policies effectively pressed foreign banks into service as agents of American influence and helped bring states like Iran to the negotiating table. On Nov. 4, the United States is set to escalate sanctions against Iran as part of its decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. These sanctions include financial messaging, so the Trump administration could press for Swift, a private cooperative based in Brussels, to disconnect Iranian banks from its network. Swift is like a global post office for banks, providing a secure messaging system for the vast majority of international transactions, so disconnecting Iran would isolate it almost completely from the global financial system and would have drastic and immediate consequences for the Iranian economy. If the Trump administration goes ahead with this plan, it will have serious consequences for the United States as well. It will undermine America’s influence over the international financial architecture and diminish its power over allies and adversaries alike. Jack Lew, who served as secretary of the Treasury from 2013 to 2017, warned two years ago that other countries might start looking for alternatives to the dollar and organizations like Swift if America takes its financial power for granted. Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, recently threatened to do just that. In an editorial published in the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, he proposed that Europe should set up its own international payment channels and its own equivalent of Swift. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, partly walked back this proposal, but she too has said that Europe cannot rely on the United States and must “take our fate into our own hands.” German and French policymakers are investigating an alternative to Swift and other ways to decouple European banks from American financial markets. The European Union and the United Nations have already set up a special payment system to facilitate trade with Iran. These baby steps may falter, but they provide a glimpse of what the world would look like if Europe became a competitive global financial power. One of the promises of globalization was that it would promote peace and stability by creating international economic networks that make countries more dependent on one another. Instead, America has weaponized this interdependence, twisting Swift and the dollar clearing system to strangle its adversaries. Other powers could do the same, or even undermine the United States by building alternative global networks. That is why the United States needs European cooperation with its approach to pressuring Iran. The European Union is the one power that could credibly test America’s dominance. The E.U. may not have an army, but it does have economic might. And it can use that power to harm American companies and, if pushed far enough, fragment the international financial system. Over the last two decades, the European Union has built up an impressive body of financial rules and officials to administer them. Recent political By turmoil, from the threatening Great Recession to to penalize the eurozone crisis, Swift, the has strengthened financial Europe’s regulatory power. messaging Previously, this service, power was deployed the U.S. is in concert with the alienating United States, but European soon it may be deallies and ployed against it. could Google and Faceundercut book have already felt the first blows, the dollar’s expressed in the dominance. threat of billiondollar fines by European regulators. If Europe starts to build its own alternative financial architecture, it will be in reaction to American overreach. The Trump administration has already threatened penalties against European companies if they do business with Iran, and the standoff has revealed the full extent of European exposure to this kind of coercion. President Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, has bluntly warned that Swift needs to ask if it is “worth the risk” to defy the United States on Iran. The Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, reportedly opposes forcing Swift to implement American sanctions. However, Congress could force Mr. Mnuchin’s hand with legislation, proposed by Senator Ted Cruz, that would require the administration to impose sanctions on Swift members. Sanctioning Swift would be a mistake for the United States. If the European Union can no longer rely on the United States, it will move to further develop its own payment channels. This would take years, but the end result could isolate the United States. Other countries — not just those in Europe — may prefer to be part of a European-led financial network, one that is backed by a publicly stated commitment to the rule of law, rather than a global financial system dominated by an increasingly unpredictable America. European politicians have long looked with envy at the power of the United States dollar. They now have an opening to position the euro as a viable competitor. The Trump administration hates being constrained by its allies. What it does not realize is that American economic power depends on the assent of other countries to be part of a financial system led by the United States. Push them too far, and American authority and influence could be permanently undermined. is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. ABRAHAM L. NEWMAN is a professor in the School of Foreign Service and Government Department at Georgetown University. HENRY J. FARRELL Printed in Athens, Denpasar, Beirut, Biratnagar, Doha, Dubai, Frankfurt, Gallargues, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Karachi, Kathmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Lahore, London, Luqa, Madrid, Manila, Milan, Nagoya, Nepalgunj, New York, Osaka, Paris, Rome, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Taipei, Tel Aviv, Tokyo,Yangon. The New York Times Company 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018-1405, NYTCo.com; The New York Times International Edition (ISSN: 2474-7149) is published six days per week. ©2018 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. To submit an opinion article, email: email@example.com, To submit a letter to the editor, email: firstname.lastname@example.org, Subscriptions: Subscribe.INYT.com, email@example.com, Tel. +33 1 41 43 93 61, Advertising: NYTmediakit.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Tel.+33 1 41 43 94 07, Classifieds: email@example.com, Tel. +44 20 7061 3534/3533, Regional Offices: U.K. 18 Museum Street, London WC1A 1JN, U.K., Tel. +44 20 7061 3500, Hong Kong 1201 K.Wah Centre, 191 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong, Tel: +852 2922 1188, Dubai PO Box 502015, Media City, Dubai UAE, Tel. +971 4428 9457 firstname.lastname@example.org, France NYT France SAS Postal Address: CS 10001, 92052 La Defense Cedex, France, Tel. +33 1 41 43 92 01, Capital de 240.000 euros. RCS Nanterre B732021126. Commission Paritaire No. 0523 C83099. Printed in France by Paris Offset Print 30 Rue Raspail 93120 La Courneuve .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 11 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION opinion Unconstitutional dreams Eric Foner U.S. voters, you’re being manipulated Nicholas Kristof When the bigot who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue arrived at the local hospital emergency room to be treated for his injuries, he was shouting, “Kill all the Jews.” He was then promptly treated, very professionally, by three Jews. The hospital president, Jeffrey K. Cohen, a member of the congregation that had been attacked, met there with the suspect to ask respectfully how he was doing. (I try to avoid using the names of mass shooters, to avoid giving them attention they sometime crave.) “He asked me who I was,” Dr. Cohen told ABC News. “I said, ‘I’m Dr. Cohen, the president of the hospital.’” Side by side with the worst of humanity we find the best. And in Pittsburgh, there was more of the best. The Muslim community promptly raised $214,000 for the victims of the synagogue shooting and offered to provide security for Jews in the area. HIAS, the Jewish agency whose assistance for refugees infuriated the synagogue attacker (he blamed Jews for bringing in brown people in the caravan from Central America), has been flooded with donations, many from non-Jews. As my own feeble way to challenge hatred, I donated to HIAS on Saturday and suggested to my newsletter readers that they might as well. If we all find our own ways to light a candle, we can drive out the enveloping darkness. These expressions of our shared humanity are important in and of themselves, but also as a way of fighting back at the fear and loathing that are being weaponized in this election cycle. One example: the breathless fear-mongering about the caravan still almost 1,000 miles away in Mexico. Let’s be blunt: Voters, you are being manipulated. President Trump has described the caravan as an “invasion of our country,” and Fox News referred to it as an invasion more than 60 times in October, along with 75 times on Fox Business Channel, according to CNN. This should be a nonstory. As I’ve written, most in the shrinking caravan will never enter the United States and they would amount to less than onetenth of 1 percent of immigrants this year. In just the period of the caravan’s journey, another 16,800 Americans may die from drugs — a real threat! Trump is deploying 5,200 United States troops to the southern border and said he may deploy 5,000 or 10,000 more. Trump and Even the smaller Fox News number is twice as are trying to many as are in Syria fighting the Islamic scare white State, and they don’t voters into have anything to do supporting at the border, plus the Republican 45-day deployment candidates. may end before the migrants actually arrive. A plausible estimate for the cost of just the smaller deployment is $35 million, which if used more sensibly could instead get 1,600 Americans off opioid addictions. The reason for the talk about invasion is simple: Trump and Fox News are trying to manipulate white voters into supporting Republican candidates. There is considerable evidence from research experiments that scaring people makes them more conservative, at least temporarily. For example, a Yale professor, John Bargh, describes in his book, “Before You Know It,” a study in which liberal college students were asked to imagine their own deaths in detail. Afterward, their views shifted rightward. Italy and E.U. stalemate ZINGALES, FROM PAGE 1 relationship. Everyone sees the flaws of the current system. The problem is that it would be political suicide to be seen as granting Italy concessions. It’s not just budget issues; it also extends to immigration, for which Italy (and Greece) bear more than their share of the cost. This raises a question: The commission has bent budgetary rules before. So why the intransigence toward the new Italian government? There are optimistic and cynical possibilities for the commission’s rejection. The optimistic one is that the commission had to intervene aggressively to save its reputation because the Italian government made a mockery of the budgetary process. The economic case for the larger Italian budget deficit seemed less like a good-faith argument and more like a deliberate provocation to create a casus belli with European officials. If this were the case, however, it would not make sense for the commission to fall for it. The more cynical view is that the commission is playing a game of national politics, pitting one nation against another against another, even at the cost of the long-term well-being of the European Union. With President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany losing popularity at home, both leaders love to blame an external villain like the new Italian government. Ms. Merkel told a German newspaper that solidarity among eurozone members should not turn the union into a “debt union.” Mr. Macron said Matteo Salvini, the leader of the League party, was right to see him as a “main opponent.” Ms. Merkel and Mr. Macron have certainly not been outdone by the new Italian government, which in turn loves to blame Europe for Italy’s problems. The real loser, in this scenario, is the hope of a functioning Europe. If the unelected European commissioners care about the future of Europe as much as they proclaim, they should make every effort to engage the Italian government in a sensible budget plan that finds a balance between preventing the debt from exploding with the demands the Italian population has made on its government. The best way to prevent the worst form of populism from spreading — which is in the interests of both the European Union commissioners and Italian citizens — is recognizing and addressing the legitimate grievances that a large fraction of the population has voiced in electing this new Italian government. One of the lessons we learned from 1930s Germany is what happens when an intransigent group of nations tries to humiliate a prostrated borrower country for petty national politics. It would be an unforgivable tragedy if the European Union were to repeat the same mistake with Italy today. is a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a co-host of the podcast “Capitalisn’t.” LUIGI ZINGALES In another experiment, students were first cautioned about a flu going around, and then asked a series of questions. Simply reminding people about the flu led some to be more negative about immigration. So, no surprise, Fox News is worrying aloud about the caravan bringing disease for want of vaccination. One Fox News “expert” warned that the diseases might include smallpox. (The fact that smallpox was eradicated worldwide four decades ago suggests his level of expertise.) I checked childhood vaccination rates for Honduras, where the caravan began. They are 97 percent, compared to 92 to 95 percent in the United States, according to the World Health Organization. No wonder the United States Centers for Disease Control believes that “the children arriving at U.S. borders pose little risk of spreading infectious diseases.” So Republican candidates conjure monsters to terrify us on a predictable election cycle. In 2010, it was “death panels” and the “Ground Zero mosque.” Four years ago, it was Ebola and ISIS terrorists sneaking in from Mexico. Two years ago it was men using transgender rights to invade women’s bathrooms. Today it’s the caravan. The brilliance of the Trump fear strategy is that scholars find that simply raising identity issues turns whites more conservative. So while Trump’s nonsense about the caravan is easily rebutted, he arouses primal, unconscious fears in white voters that make them more likely to vote Republican. There’s a risk that in responding to the incitement, I am amplifying Trump’s message. But I believe in rationality and our capacity, if warned, to resist manipulation. In Pittsburgh, we saw that heroism could counter evil by relying on the very best instincts of our shared humanity. We need similar heroism from all of us voters, mustering the basic goodness and common sense to defeat the torrent of demagogy, hate and fear. Neuroscience of hate speech FRIEDMAN, FROM PAGE 10 As Dr. Fiske has written, “Both science and history suggest that people will nurture and act on their prejudices in the worst ways when these people are put under stress, pressured by peers, or receive approval from authority figures to do so.” So when someone like President Trump dehumanizes his adversaries, he could be putting them beyond the reach of empathy, stripping them of moral protection and making it easier to harm them. If you still have any doubt about the power of political speech to foment physical violence, consider the classic experiment by the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, who in the early 1960s studied the willingness of a group of men to obey an authority figure. Subjects were told to administer electrical shocks to another participant, without knowing that the shocks were fake. Sixty-five percent of the subjects did what they were told and delivered the maximum shock, which if real could have been fatal. The implication is that we can easily be influenced by authority to do terrible harm to others — just by receiving an order. Now imagine what would happen if President Trump actually issued a call to arms to his supporters. Scared? You should be. RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN is a psychiatrist. In an interview with the news program “Axios on HBO,” President Trump announced that he plans to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship, the principle that everyone born in the United States, with a handful of exceptions, is automatically a citizen of the United States. “It was always told to me,” the president declared, “that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.” In fact, such an order would undoubtedly be unconstitutional. It would also violate a deeply rooted American idea — that anybody, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or the legal status of one’s parents, can be a loyal citizen of this country. Birthright citizenship is established by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, still on the books today, and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified two years later. The only exceptions, in the words of the amendment, are persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Members of Congress at the time made clear that this wording applied only to Native Americans living on reservations — then considered members of their own tribal sovereignties, not the nation — and American-born children of foreign diplomats. (Congress made all Native Americans citizens in 1924.) Embedding birthright citizenship in the Constitution was one of the transformative results of the Civil War and the destruction of slavery. Before the war, no uniform definition of citizenship existed. Soon after the conflict ended, members of Congress asked Horace Binney, a prominent lawyer and a former congressman, to explore the meaning of citizenship. “The word citizen,” he responded, “is found ten times at least in the Constitution of the United States, and no definition of it is given anywhere.” States determined who was a citizen and the rules varied considerably. Massachusetts recognized free African-Americans as citizens; many other states did not. For persons immigrating from abroad, moreover, racial distinctions were built into federal law. The first Naturalization Act, in 1790, limited the process of naturalization to “white persons.” In 1857, on the eve of the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, declared that no black person, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States or part of the national “political community.” Echoes of this outlook persist to this day, including in Mr. Trump’s long campaign to deny the birthright citizenship status of President Barack Obama. Long before the Civil War, abolitionists black and white had proposed an alternative understanding of national citizenship severed from the concept of race, with citizens’ rights enforced by the federal government. Gatherings where northern free blacks agitated for equal rights called themselves conventions of “colored citizens” to drive home this idea. And by the conclusion of the war, the end of slavery and the service of nearly 200,000 African-Americans in the Union army and navy propelled the question of black citizenship to center stage of President American politics. Trump The Fourteenth has U.S. Amendment was birthright meant to provide, for citizenship the first time, a uniform national all wrong. definition of citizenship, so that states would no longer be able to deny that status to blacks. It went on to require the states to accord all “persons,” including aliens, the equal protection of the laws, as part of an effort to create a new egalitarian republic on the ashes of slavery. The birthright citizenship provision, explained Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, one of the founders of the Republican Party and the floor manager of the amendment’s passage in the Senate, was intended to “settle the great question of citizenship once and for all.” The amendment formed part of a constitutional revolution that, in the words of George William Curtis, the editor of the Republican magazine Harper’s Weekly, transformed a document “for white men” into one “for mankind.” In 1870, Congress amended the naturalization laws to allow black immigrants to become citizens. The bar to Asians, however, persisted; they could not be naturalized until well into the 20th century. Mr. Trump’s prospective order would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to noncitizens. It is especially aimed at undocumented immigrants who supposedly pour into the country to have “anchor babies” — one of the president’s numerous exaggerations when it comes to the dangers posed by immigration. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the category of illegal or undocumented immigrants did not exist. The closest analogy to children born today to such immigrants were the American-born offspring of newcomers from China. At the time, their parents could not become citizens, but in 1898, following the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed that a person of Chinese origin born in the United States was a citizen by birthright. In the interview in which he discussed his plan to issue the executive order, Mr. Trump claimed that the United States is “the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States.” This, too, is an exaggeration, as many in the Western Hemisphere do recognize birthright citizenship. But it is true that in the past decade or two the nations of Europe have retreated from this principle. All limit automatic access to citizenship in some way, making it depend not simply on place of birth but also on ethnicity, culture, religion or extra requirements for the children of parents who are not citizens. That has not been our way. Adopted as part of the effort to purge the United States of the legacy of slavery, the principle of birthright citizenship remains an eloquent statement about the nature of American society, a powerful force for assimilation of the children of immigrants and a repudiation of our long history of racism. Mr. Trump’s order, if issued, will not only violate both the Constitution and deeply rooted American ideals, but also set a dangerous precedent. If the president can unilaterally abrogate a provision of the Constitution by executive order, which one will be next? is the author of many works of American history, including “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1866-1877.” His latest book, “The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Forged a Constitutional Revolution,” will appear next year. ERIC FONER .. 12 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION Sports Transparent training for New York’s marathon ning. Rosario acts as a kind of general manager for the team, picking its members, negotiating salaries for the runners and managing the budget. How much the runners get paid depends on their experience and success, but since 11 runners are dividing about $500,000, no one is getting rich. In mid-October, the NAZ Elite crew drove an hour to 3,000 feet of elevation in Camp Verde for one of its last brutally intense workouts before the marathon. It was a mix of quad-burning three-mile tempo runs that topped out at a grueling pace of 4 minutes and 45 seconds per mile and increasingly fast, lung-searing interval runs that ranged from 400 to 1,600 meters. The goal was to go faster when they were tired to prepare them for a New York marathon that is usually filled with changing paces and surges. “We want to run in the lead pack,” Rosario said. Through it all, Jen Rosario snapped hundreds of pictures and Bruce’s husband, Ben, filmed bits on his phone that could eventually be edited and uploaded to nazelite.com. Four days later, when Bruce ran her final hard workout — 15 miles at 5:50 per mile at 7,000 feet with Smith and her husband pacing her — a camera was in her face as soon as she was done. “The hay is for sure in the barn,” she said, using the runner-speak phrase that translates roughly to “the work for the big race is done.” Fauble ran 2:12:35 in his debut marathon in Frankfurt last year, which is an impressive debut but still a way from world class. Kipchoge’s marathon world record is 2:01:39. Fauble would be thrilled to break 2:10. If he can do that, he would keep up with other NAZ Elite runners who are beginning to have competitive success as well. In June, Kellyn Taylor, who is often running next to Bruce in videos, won and set a course record (2:24:28) at the Grandma’s Marathon in Minnesota. In July, Bruce won the 10K national road championship at the Peachtree Road Race in Atlanta. Aliphine Tuliamuk, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kenya, won national championships in the half marathon and the 25K earlier this year. While the winning is welcome, it is not required for NAZ success. “People are afraid to be vulnerable,” Bruce said. “Now if I fail people feel like they are a part of that.” FLAGSTAFF, ARIZ. Arizona running club goes against the grain by putting it all online BY MATTHEW FUTTERMAN There is a standard operating procedure for the elite running clubs that produce most of the world’s top distance runners: Gather the fastest possible runners. Have them toil in secrecy, allowing only limited contact with the civilized world. Never ease up, especially not during altitude training, when the hardest and most crucial marathon preparation takes place. It’s all very proprietary. Then there is the club known as Northern Arizona Elite, where daily training logs are published online. Key workouts are filmed, photographed and shared on social media, the team website and in certain cases a YouTube channel. The 11 runners in the club, especially the veterans who run the biggest races, are required to be as public as possible about every aspect of their pursuits. The club is, essentially, a digital running reality series. Its members are hardly superstars. The three who are competing Sunday in the New York City Marathon — Stephanie Bruce, Scott Fauble and Scott Smith — are long shots to win. They have their sights set on the top 10, but none has ever come close to winning one of the world’s six major marathons. Yet they are constantly blogging and tweeting and giving advice to runners getting ready for their first 5K or trying to shave those last few minutes from their marathon times so they can qualify for Boston. This may sound counterintuitive: After all, what football team opens its playbook to an opponent before the Super Bowl? The NAZ Elite approach to strategy and data, however, illustrates that there are no real secrets or shortcuts to success in long-distance running anymore. It is also a new concept for how top runners can subsist and thrive in a sport that has a lot of participation but PHOTOGRAPHS BY CAITLIN O’HARA FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Left, Coach Ben Rosario watching Scott Fauble, center, and Scott Smith, right, train in Camp Verde, Ariz.; above, Danielle Shanahan preparing to warm up; below, Erin Clark lacing up her shoes. relatively few fans. The idea is to present not just the triumphs in competing and training but the trials and the failures, too — for runners to be something more than just their trophies. “If you don’t believe that is part of the job of being a professional runner today then you don’t get it,” Ben Rosario, the club’s head coach, said recently over beers and tostadas at a downtown Flagstaff bistro here in Arizona’s high desert. “We don’t have a machine behind us like the N.F.L. or the N.B.A.” This twist on the usual secrecy of elite running clubs is Rosario’s brainchild. He is an Olympic Trials marathon qualifier who founded the Big River Running Company, a running specialty store in St. Louis. As he moved into coaching and decided he wanted to lead a club for the best of the best runners, he realized he needed to offer more to a shoe company than victories if he was going to persuade one to sponsor his efforts. NON SEQUITUR of the NAZ Elite workout we did that day.” Fauble, who turns 27 on Monday, said he began to understand the reach of the club when the group was in Boston in the spring for a 5K race and the Boston Marathon. “We had like 25 people a day coming up to us and recognizing us and asking for our pictures,” he said. “It blew me away.” Most marathon runners race that distance only twice each year. Unless their name is Eliud Kipchoge, who has won 10 of his 11 marathon starts, the race is a crapshoot. Over the course of 26.2 miles, so many things can go wrong. Injuries are common. Wins are rare. Bruce ran a marathon in 2 hours and 29 minutes in Houston in 2011 but says only now — after having two children — is she in the best shape of her life. Winning in New York probably will require a time around 2:25. “I want to be the best version of myself on the day,” she said. Bruce’s teammates, Fauble and Smith, said they are focused on being competitive, of experiencing the race from the front. “We’ll work together,” Smith, 32, said. Smith, who finished 14th in the 10,000 meters at the Olympic Trials in 2016, used to wait tables to support his running. The idea that he and the 10 other club members are sharing some kind of trade secrets is absurd, he said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with a training plan these days,” Smith said. Rosario started the club here, at 7,000 feet above sea level, in part because it allows for vital altitude training that increases red blood cells, which carry oxygen to muscles. He drafted his wife, Jen, to serve as the team videographer and photographer, so that the runners can continue to raise their profiles — and Hoka’s — even when they aren’t win- PEANUTS DOONESBURY CLASSIC 1991 GARFIELD CALVIN AND HOBBES WIZARD of ID DILBERT No. 0211 Created by Peter Ritmeester/Presented by Will Shortz (c) PZZL.com Distributed by The New York Times syndicate SUDOKU So Rosario came up with the concept of a team that searches for the spotlight nearly every day and goes public with everything about training, including distance and pace, that fans don’t hear about usually. He sought out runners who were fast and had the potential to improve, but who were also good, supportive teammates who would be willing to unload their hopes and dreams and insecurities often enough to establish a rapport with as many runners as possible. Hoka, a small shoe company known for its feather-light cushioning, signed on, agreeing to fund the bulk of what is now NAZ Elite’s roughly $700,000 annual budget. “There’s no other club that is going to tell you what they are doing every day of the week,” said Mike McManus, senior sports marketing director at Hoka. Word appears to be getting out. Bruce, 34, said runners send her “messages and tell me how they did a version Fill the grid so that every row, column 3x3 box and shaded 3x3 box contains each of the numbers 1 to 9 exactly once. For solving tips and more puzzles: www.nytimes.com/ sudoku Solution No. 0111 CROSSWORD | Edited by Will Shortz KENKEN Fill the grids with digits so as not to repeat a digit in any row or column, and so that the digits within each heavily outlined box will produce the target number shown, by using addition, subtraction, multiplication or division, as indicated in the box. A 4x4 grid will use the digits 1-4. A 6x6 grid will use 1-6. Across 28 Game in which headache 31 Belt under the waist? 4 Tank top 35 Some Tornado Alley residents 10 “Westworld” network 13 Restaurant chain with a “never-ending pasta bowl” 19 Doughnut-loving toon 21 Kind of ball that’s 37 Country music’s ___ 61 Show with a musical Young Band guest, for short “Twilight Zone” episodes, for short 39 9-to-5, maybe 40 [Knock, knock] symphonic “verse” 23 Did a pantomime of 24 Ukulele accessory 25 Like many textbook publishers 26 Show letters 46 “Heck, yeah!” 47 Didn’t keep quiet N E A T O E A N B R E O R N A C N O L J/B E L E V E T A G G E E R R E D T E A E N D Megadeth 63 An end to jargon? 65 See 56-Down 2 Simple craft 3 Confidence booster on L E T O/I N F/C L A W A O N E T W O S N O R A G O/L D O D P T 7 8 9 10 15 11 12 16 18 20 23 24 26 31 21 32 25 27 28 33 22 34 29 30 35 36 37 40 38 41 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 61 62 59 56 60 a test 6 Latin rhythm A P N E A 6 14 19 Down 5 Hollywood title: Abbr. R E A L M 5 1 Hot chocolaty drink 50 Talk smack to S U A P G P L A L I U N I S K C H Y P P I S E L I S E L S P R A A S G T I E E N R 4 64 Classic gag gift 4 Its teeth are pointy D O G G E R E L 3 62 Genre for Anthrax and 48 Level Solution to November 1 Puzzle T O E L E S S penthouse 58 Wasted vacation days? 44 Composer of E S T A S L A P P I/A T T T A I T B P L U L O A D O L D E B/T O Y R S A M O C H I/A T H E C T M A R E O D O R 17 2 56 Invite, as to one’s 42 Has as a tenant edible Answers to Previous Puzzles 13 55 Bear in a hit 2012 film 36 Explosion cause 17 “You wanna fight?!” 18 Remote inserts 54 Stopped debating 57 ___ package 38 Figures in some 20 ___ Air KenKen® is a registered trademark of Nextoy, LLC. Copyright © 2018 www.KENKEN.com. All rights reserved. I is 1 1 It might give you a 16 Slip For solving tips and more KenKen puzzles: www.nytimes.com/ kenken. For Feedback: nytimes@ kenken.com 1 7 Unsavory fellows 8 Spot remover? 9 Bits ___ second 10 Hershey toffee treats 11 Its shell has three 63 64 PUZZLE BY DAVID STEINBERG 27 What insomnia causes to build up over time 29 Like Call of Duty: Black Ops sides 12 Guesstimate words 30 This, to Tomás 14 German wheels 31 Breezy air 15 Emphatic rejection 32 Spinoff Nabisco 22 Fathers’ clothes 24 “Sweet” 65 cookies 33 Wimp 34 Establishment to which customers have come for years? 52 Elder of the sisters who visited Narnia in “The Chronicles of Narnia” 41 Classic TV diner 53 Said “O-D-O-U-R,” e.g. 43 Tears don’t rip it 54 Ukulele accessory 45 Stubborn Dr. Seuss pair 49 Clarifier in texts 51 Very furry, muscular dog 56 With 65-Across, fierce marcher 59 Post cereal made with honey 60 ___ Chang (ex-girlfriend of Harry Potter) .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 13 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION Culture One wedding gig and they went global LONDON The choir that performed for Prince Harry and his bride now has an album BY DAVID SEGAL Karen Gibson wanted some silence. She was standing before the Kingdom Choir, the gospel ensemble she founded and has led for more than 20 years, during a recent rehearsal at a church in the London neighborhood of Pimlico. The group had just been working on a version of “All of Me,” made famous by John Legend, and a couple of dozen singers were enjoying a rambunctious moment of downtime. “O.K., got to listen,” Ms. Gibson said, raising her arms and her voice. The chattering continued. “When I say, ‘Listen,’ I’m serious,” she said, much louder. The talking stopped. “You see how things are kicking up. You are going to have to be on the top of your game. When I say, ‘Listen,’ I’m saying it for a reason. Am I clear?” “Yes, ma’am,” the group replied. Once a passion project for parttimers, the Kingdom Choir is exhibiting a new intensity at rehearsals. It started soon after May 19, the day the group dazzled millions of viewers at the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, now the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. For those who hadn’t taken a look at the program, there was the initial surprise of a stirring sermon by Michael Curry, an African-American preacher. Once he was done, all eyes turned to the rear of the church, where the Kingdom Choir launched into three-part harmony version of “Stand by Me.” A song made famous by Ben E. King, an American soul artist, performed by black singers, for an aristocracy that is emblematically British and white. As a bit of culture splicing, it was inspired, though Ms. Gibson said that initially she had no idea that she and her choir had triumphed. “We’re used to people shouting during our songs,” she said in an interview a few days after the Pimlico rehearsal. “When we were done, all we heard was the rustling of people turning their heads around.” In the days that followed, the media in Britain anointed Ms. Gibson the country’s “godmother of gospel”; YouTube videos of the choir’s performance have been viewed several million times. For a group whose biggest previous audience was 200 people, the transition from obscurity to global acclaim was instant. And just getting started. Last week, Sony released the Kingdom Choir’s debut album, “Stand By Me,” recorded, in part, with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. The group performed in Sydney, Australia, at the close of the Invictus Games on Saturday, and an 18-city tour of Britain, the group’s first, is planned for next year. That will be followed by to-be-announced dates in the United States, according to the choir’s management. For Ms. Gibson, a natural introvert with a beatific smile, recognition has been an adjustment. Her elaborate upswirl of pewter-toned hair makes her instantly recognizable, and she said she was getting accustomed to fame, which she finds both strange and exhilarating. As she took a seat for this interview, in a South London cafe, a young man stood to make room. “Your music helped me through a very dark place,” he said, as he picked up his backpack and moved. “The weird part is that I am living the same life I’ve always lived,” Ms. Gibson said after the two talked for a minute. “I go to the same supermarket. I’m making the same music. I’m ordinary. But not.” Ms. Gibson has been involved with gospel singing since she was a teenager, PHOTOGRAPHS BY ANDREW TESTA FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Karen Gibson, front, and the Kingdom Choir in London last month. Before singing in May for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, the group was largely unknown. Below, Ms. Gibson at a recent rehearsal. growing up in the Battersea neighborhood of South London and attending a black Pentecostal church. Inspired by early work of the Winans, who would become perhaps the United States’ foremost gospel family, she, her sister and some childhood friends formed a sextet called New Dawn. The group performed all over England, primarily at churches. After high school, Ms. Gibson spent “11 unhappy years” in information technology for an arm of local government. When she was laid off, she found a job teaching gospel at a girls Catholic school. She formed the Kingdom Choir in 1994, reuniting members of New Dawn and recruiting others who had the right mix of singing chops and positive energy. “I don’t audition,” Ms. Gibson said. “It’s down to our connection.” There are dozens of gospel groups in Britain, and many were more prominent than the Kingdom Choir. But one former Kingdom member knew Eva Williams, Prince Charles’s deputy head of communication. Ms. Gibson was riding a bus one day in March when her cellphone rang. “We’d like to invite you to sing at the royal wedding,” Ms. Williams said. “Mostly what I felt was disbelief,” Ms. Gibson remembers. “Right up until the wedding, I kept thinking, this is going to fall through.” She was initially instructed not to tell anyone, a challenge for a conductor who needs 20 singers to clear their calendar months in advance. Elaine Simpson, a choir member and longtime friend, was one of those recruited. “Karen called me and asked if I was free on May 19,” Ms. Simpson said. “I said, ‘I’m not free. Why?’ And she said, ‘Google the date.’ I was thinking, what is the point of Googling a date?” In an instant, Ms. Simpson decided she could be free on May 19. Gathering members was the easy part. The challenge was coming up with an arrangement of “Stand by Me,” a request of the royals, that the couple liked. The first version, sent via MP3, got a polite, “No, thank you.” Prince Harry and Ms. Markle wanted it stripped down and less syncopated, Ms. Gibson said. Versions two, three, four, five and six were all rejected with the same directive: Pare it back. So Ms. Gibson suggested a face-to-face meeting with the couple. Off she went to Kensington Palace with five singers and a keyboard player. “They were lovely,” she said. “And I just walked through an arrangement on the spot. ‘Do “oohs” here. The second verse will come in here.’ And the minute we started to sing, I could just feel their approval, the joy, the effect. Both of them said, ‘That’s the one.’” It wasn’t. When the choir recorded the new arrangement, it reacquired “bells “Tosca,” he tracked down the original reels of 16-millimeter film in one archive, and a full set of color images of the production in another. “It was almost like a detective job,” he said. The photographs, he added, “gave us 100 percent of the references for everything: the sets, the costumes, her makeup, every single color.” Colorization can be polarizing. Film buffs tend to cringe when classic blackand-white movies are colorized, but here there is no director whose auteur vision is being altered. Then there are the persistent questions of how well it is done; see the endless debates about the colors used to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings. But Mr. Volf said that the colorized Callas was winning fans. “The greatest compliment I had was from people who attended some of those performances,” he said. “They said to me after the film, ‘You know, we remember that red dress.’ They remembered, vividly, her makeup, because she had a very particular way of doing her makeup, and they said, ‘That was exactly it.’” Callas in the final scene of “Norma” in Paris, near the end of her operatic career. The film also includes footage of her in “Tosca.” and whistles,” Ms. Gibson’s shorthand for more complicated rhythms and additional harmonies. Versions seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12 were all turned down. With no time left for more back and forth, the choir improvised what amounted to version 13 on wedding day. The members met that morning at Buckingham Palace and drove roughly 25 miles to St. George’s Chapel with a police escort. “We were so ready,” Ms. Gibson said of the performance. “We just prayed that this gift of a song was accepted.” The challenge was coming up with an arrangement of “Stand by Me,” a request of the royals, that the couple liked. Only during the end of the second number, “This Little Light of Mine” — sung as the royal couple left the church and got into a horse-drawn carriage — were there claps and cheers. A few attendees offered congratulations. The actor Tom Hardy gave Ms. Gibson a hug. Then bodyguards came to escort her and other members to a press room, where they got their first taste of celebrity. “It was a bit of pandemonium,” Ms. Simpson said. “We were trying to get to the BBC studio with this escort, and we were literally mobbed. People came up to us crying, wanting our photographs. But it was all love. Everyone was smiling, laughing.” In a matter of days, the group’s Instagram account soared from 700 followers to 32,000. Friends and well-wishers called, as did a talent manager, Jonathan Shalit. He’d seen a story about the choir and noticed that Ms. Gibson hadn’t mentioned anything about an album — either a deal or an imminent release. “They didn’t even have a P.R. person, but I managed to track down a contact for her,” Mr. Shalit said in an interview. “When I found out that they didn’t have a record deal, I was gobsmacked.” His pitch to Ms. Gibson emphasized the rewards of the here rather than the hereafter. “He asked me, ‘If you had any amount of money, what would you do with it?’” she recalled. “And I said, ‘I want to look after my mum. I want to pay off her bills. Pay off my bills.’” With the promise of added income has come added work. Rehearsals are now twice a week, instead of once every two. Some choir members have quit their full-time jobs. But even as the Kingdom Choir goes pro, it has kept the jubilant atmosphere that has long defined it. For every stern word that Ms. Gibson uttered at the Pimlico rehearsal, there were 20 of pure encouragement. The night ended with the choir listening back to a track they’d recorded for the album. It was Jill Scott’s “Golden,” and for many in the room, it was the first time they’d heard the finished product. They were on their feet, singing along to their own voices, dancing and jumping, an almost athletic outburst of bliss. In a corner, Ms. Gibson beamed, clapped and joined in the chorus: “Living my life like it’s golden, living my life like it’s golden.” La divina a colori A new documentary includes colorized footage of Maria Callas onstage BY MICHAEL COOPER What was it like to experience the great soprano Maria Callas? Technology continues to try to approximate an answer for those who missed her storied career. Her recordings have been remastered, and re-remastered. A holographic image of her, accompanied by a live orchestra, is going on a world tour. Now a new documentary, “Maria by Callas,” which opens in New York and Los Angeles on Friday, has colorized some of the all-too-rare footage of her singing. Here is Callas, now in vibrant color, in two of her most celebrated roles: Bellini’s Norma and Puccini’s Tosca. The “Tosca” film, taken at the Royal Opera House in London in 1964, is well known — but only in black and white. Tom Volf, the director of “Maria by Callas,” restored it in high definition and colorized it, bringing out the deep red of her velvet dress, the gold of the brocade, the glitter of her jewels. “The idea is to make her accessible to new generations, and younger audiences,” he said in a telephone interview. Mr. Volf said that he got the idea to colorize some of Callas’s performances while collecting footage — much of which has never been seen before — for the film, and discovering, to his surprise, how much was already in color, and what a visceral reaction it gave him. “The idea is to make her accessible to new generations.” “It was very striking to me that watching her in color suddenly gave me the sense almost that she was alive, that she was there,” he said. “She was not some kind of dusty figure from the past, but somehow she was present, and in the present.” So he decided to colorize some of the performance footage, too — but only in cases where he had good color photographs to match. For the Royal Opera SONY PICTURES CLASSICS .. 14 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION culture Going for the lesser gold THE CARPETBAGGER Why potential nominees for Oscars often campaign as supporting players BY KYLE BUCHANAN In Hollywood, it pays to be on top. That is, unless it interferes with your Oscar campaign. Welcome to awards season, the only time of year when actors wave aside matters of ego and star billing to argue that they were less essential to their films than you might have thought. Why would these movie stars diminish the standing that their agents fought so hard to secure? Because sometimes, a supporting-actor route presents the easiest path to Oscar. Here are just some of the strategies employed by this year’s major contenders, all of whom hope their humility will be rewarded with hardware. THE CO-STAR AVERSE TO COMPETING Power plays are the name of the game in “The Favourite” (due Nov. 23), so perhaps it’s appropriate that the Oscar campaign for the film involves a certain amount of scheming, too. In this royal comedy, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz play two ladies at court who manipulate the diminished Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) to suit their own ambitions, and to judge from screen time alone, all three women are evenly matched leads. Yet to throw the three of them into the same best actress race might split the vote in what is shaping up to be a very competitive category. The distributor Fox Searchlight has come up with a unique fix: The studio is positioning Colman as the sole lead and the marketing will suggest that voters consider Stone and Weisz for supporting slots. While that order upholds the royal hierarchy, it seems outrageous to argue that Stone and Weisz are not the protagonists of “The Favourite,” since they do all of the film’s plotting. Still, with this strategy, Fox Searchlight is probably mindful of Oscar history: No movie has placed more than one woman in the best actress category since Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were nominated for “Thelma and Louise” in 1991, yet a twofer is so common in the best supporting actress category that “Up in the Air,” “The Fighter,” “The Help” and “Doubt” all managed it in the last decade. To split up the women of “The Favourite” in this fashion may be the only way to get all three nominated. The supporting-actor gambit feels more questionable when it comes to “Green Book” (Nov. 21), a 1960s roadtrip dramedy with Mahershala Ali as a virtuoso pianist who hires a lightly racist palooka (Viggo Mortensen) to serve as his chauffeur while touring the Deep South. “Green Book,” based on a true story, wouldn’t work if these two actors were anything less than equals; in fact, during the film’s centerpiece scene, Ali’s character argues to a bigoted restaurateur that he deserves the same seat at the table as Mortensen. However, Universal will push Mortensen as the film’s sole lead, while Ali will contend in the supporting-actor category. I’m told that Ali made the choice himself, based on the fact that he enters “Green Book” 15 minutes later than Mortensen, and this distinction may earn him his second Oscar (after his supporting win for “Moonlight”): Ali is that strong in the role, and his screen time will swamp other UNIVERSAL PICTURES Clockwise from above: Mahershala Ali, right, opposite Viggo Mortensen in “Green Book”; Timothée Chalamet, center, in “Beautiful Boy,” with Steve Carell in the background; and Rachel Weisz, left, and Emma Stone in “The Favourite.” father, the Oscar campaign will position Chalamet as a supporting actor. How are these actors not considered co-leads? Because the 56-year-old Carell, a showbiz veteran, is perceived as Chalamet’s senior when it comes to Oscar categorization. The same principle is at play with the summer drama “The Wife,” for which Glenn Close will be run as a best actress candidate while her onscreen husband, Jonathan Pryce, is touted for the supporting-actor category. The irony here is rich: Both actors have the same amount of screen time in “The Wife,” in which Close plays a woman living in the shadow of her spouse (Pryce), an author who has just won the Nobel Prize. However, Pryce has never been nominated for an Oscar, while Close is gunning for her seventh nomination and first win. To position Pryce as her support doesn’t simply propel him into a race that may be easier for him to penetrate, it also fortifies both the narrative of the film and Close’s Oscar campaign: This is a woman who has long deserved major recognition, and no one ought to get in her way. In October, the publicity firm hired to manage the Oscar campaign for “A Quiet Place” announced that Emily Blunt would be campaigned for as a lead actress for the spring sleeper hit about a family trying to survive the postapocalypse. A week later, the story changed: Actually, Blunt will go supporting, since she and her husband, the director and star John Krasinski, have decided that “A Quiet Place” was a true ensemble with no clear lead. Was Blunt adopting the humble credo of the actors from the best picture winner “Spotlight,” who all positioned themselves for supporting-actor consideration? More likely, she was trying to get out of her own way: Disney plans a big Oscar campaign for December’s “Mary Poppins Returns,” in which Blunt plays the role that won Julie Andrews a best actress Oscar. Still, the question is whether the academy will take heed, and all of these strategizing stars would be advised to keep that in mind. In 2008, Kate Winslet was faced with a similar champagne problem: She had two strong roles, in “Revolutionary Road” and “The Reader,” and she argued that the latter was a supporting performance, so as not to get in the way of her primary campaign for “Revolutionary Road.” In the end, though, the academy proved cool to that film. Not only was Winslet snubbed for “Revolutionary Road,” but voters also decided to ignore Winslet’s own wishes and nominated her for best actress for “The Reader.” A happy ending was secured when Winslet still managed to win the Oscar for that film, but the message was clear: When it comes to categorization, no one outranks the academy. She attended college at the University of New Mexico and married three times, once to a sculptor and twice to jazz musicians. She lived with these men all over the map. She learned to think early about what to take and what to leave in life; about how to inhabit places you want to go but will not be able to stay. She had four sons whom she mostly raised alone; she fought to find time for her writing. The stories in “Evening in Paradise” mostly follow the arc of Berlin’s life. There is more of a through-line to follow than there was in “A Manual for Cleaning Women.” The protagonists, though seen from a variety of perspectives, are women much like herself. One thing that makes Berlin so valuable is her gift for evoking the sweetness and earnestness of young women who fall in love (one thinks that being a good wife is handing her husband his coffee handle first, while she grasps the hot side) and then catching them at that moment when things begin to turn, when the trees of their being are forced to grow bark. Her women are impulsive; they’re leapers; they’re in pursuit of wildness, of ravishment; they want to crack their men open like crabs and pull out the meat. Every pore of their beings is open. They want, in Elizabeth Hardwick’s phrase, “love and alcohol and the clothes on the floor.” But the men don’t talk to them. Or are always away working. Or have heroin habits. Her women, weary from the day’s hassle, learn to fend for themselves. Berlin is so stealthily funny. At the worst moment in one woman’s life, with police at her dinner table, a goat and a pony thrust their heads through an open window as if to say, “Hey.” She writes about a cat that liked to push a telephone off its hook just so it could hear a voice say the phone is off the hook. There’s a riff about how there’s no way anyone named Cokie — I assume she means Cokie Roberts — is a middle-class person from Ohio. Her women find solace in trees and flowers. They plant things in thin topsoil; they only rarely get to watch them grow. They find solace, too, in the radio and in records and in their husbands’ jam sessions. There’s so much music in Berlin’s stories, from the “Cielito Lindo” guitar players of her youth to her own music: Buddy Holly, Charlie Parker, Sonny Rollins, the bossa novas of Astrud Gilberto. Berlin’s mothers sing to their children: “Texarkana Baby,” “The Red River Valley.” Sometimes the sounds are circumambient. In a story called “Sombra,” she writes: “Music came from everywhere, not transistors walking down city streets, but faraway mariachis, a bolero on a radio in the kitchen, the whistle of the knife sharpener, an organ grinder, workmen singing from a scaffold.” Berlin probably deserved a Pulitzer Prize; she definitely deserved, to borrow the name of a Waylon Jennings song, a Wurlitzer Prize, for all the coins she drops in our mental jukeboxes. She has an instinctive access to the ways music can both provoke and fortify. “There are things people just don’t talk about,” Berlin wrote in a story titled “Dust to Dust.” “I don’t mean the hard things, like love, but the awkward ones, like how funerals are fun sometimes or how it’s exciting to watch buildings burning.” She managed to write, beautifully, about the hard and the awkward things. Nothing came easily to her. In a letter collected in “Welcome Home,” Berlin describes an uncomfortable lunch in 1960 with her agent, whom she calls “a goddamn pimp,” and a lecherous book editor from a major house. They’re at the Algonquin. The men get trashed on bourbon. On their way out, the editor murmurs that Berlin is as lovely as her writing. Her agent adds, out of the editor’s earshot, “Well, you’ve cinched that, honey.” Berlin is outraged. She writes, “The only move short of kicking him into the palm pot was simply to say to hell with him, which I easily did.” During her lifetime, she was not published by that major house, or any other. She is now. FRANCOIS DUHAMEL/AMAZON STUDIOS YORGOS LANTHIMOS/20TH CENTURY FOX contenders in his category. It’s the same strategy that was employed by Viola Davis, who positioned herself as a supporting actress for “Fences” and won her first Oscar, even though she’d previously taken home a lead-actress Tony for the same role on Broadway. Still, it has been 12 years since the “Last King of Scotland” star Forest Whitaker became the last person of color to win best actor, and 17 years since Halle Berry in “Monster’s Ball” became the only woman of color to win best actress. You can’t fault Ali’s strategy for going supporting, nor the rarefied space he would occupy if he won: The only other black actor who has collected two competitive Oscars is Denzel Washington. While I might wish that Ali would throw his hat into the leading race, the onus is not on him but on Hollywood to provide the most talented black thespians with roles that are unambiguous leads. THE DEFERENTIAL SCENE PARTNER When “Beautiful Boy” earned one of the year’s highest per-screen averages in its opening weekend last month, it wasn’t just because audiences were clamoring to see first-billed Steve Carell: Many of those moviegoers were turning out to watch Timothée Chalamet in his first major role since the star-making “Call Me by Your Name.” The fact that the 22-year-old actor was doing in-person appearances further goosed the box office. Despite Chalamet’s ascendancy, and in spite of the fact that he and Carell evenly split “Beautiful Boy” as a drugaddicted youth and his concerned THE STRATEGIZING DOUBLE-DIPPER In pursuit of wildness BOOK REVIEW Evening in Paradise: More Stories By Lucia Berlin. 244 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $26. Welcome Home: A Memoir With Selected Photographs and Letters By Lucia Berlin. Edited and with a foreword by Jeff Berlin. Illustrated. 162 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $25. BY DWIGHT GARNER Two of the best reasons to be alive as a reader this decade have been the rediscovery of two American writers who published much of their best work in the 1970s and ’80s: Eve Babitz and Lucia Berlin. They’ve moved from the periphery of my own literary consciousness to somewhere not terribly far from the center. They’re very different. Babitz’s work – read the memoirs first – is shrewd, knowing and sun-drenched. She resembles what Colette, the experiencehungry French writer, might have sounded like if she’d come of age in Los Angeles when the Mamas and the Papas were breaking out on the radio. Berlin (1936-2004) was a writer of tender, chaotic and careworn short stories. Her work can remind you of Raymond Carver’s or Grace Paley’s or Denis Johnson’s; her stories mine a blue-collar vein even when she’s writing about men who went to Harvard and drive Porsches. With their bed heads and heartsickness, her characters can also seem to have fallen out of Dusty Springfield’s “Dusty in Memphis” album. Berlin published 76 stories during her lifetime. Many of these were collected and issued in book form by the California-based Black Sparrow Press, which also published Charles Bukowski. They’ve begun to be reissued now by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. The book to find first is “A Manual for Cleaning Women,” an important selection of her stories that appeared in 2015. Rereading my review of that collection, I’m embarrassed to see that I said of it, “This book would have been twice as good at a bit more than half the length.” I added, “Ms. Berlin is a writer you want in your back pocket; this volume’s tombstone heft turns her into homework. Stories could have been omitted.” I still think she’s a writer you want in your back pocket, in slim volumes the size of Johnson’s “Jesus’ Son.” But I regret any implication that her work was already, in that book, beginning to thin out. In part, this is because Farrar, Straus & Giroux is here with another potent selection of her stories, published under the title “Evening in Paradise.” There is little if any diminishment in quality or intensity. BUDDY BERLIN Lucia Berlin. The publisher has also released “Welcome Home: A Memoir with Selected Photographs and Letters.” This memoir, which lacks the richness of Berlin’s fiction, had been left uncompleted. The letters are mostly to a friend and mentor, the poet Edward Dorn. “Welcome Home” is mostly of biographical interest; it’s a stand-in until the inevitable biography of Berlin is written. The stories in “Evening in Paradise” are set in Chile and Texas and Mexico and Manhattan and Oakland, Calif., all places Berlin knew well. Berlin’s father worked in the mine business, and the struggling family moved often when she was young. When her father took a job in Chile, they lived in Santiago for a while in relative luxury. .. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 | 15 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION travel A new taste of Marrakesh Ancient Moroccan city is being reinvigorated by local entrepreneurs BY DAN SALTZSTEIN Twenty years after my first visit, some things about Marrakesh remain remarkably similar. The medina — the labyrinthine old part of the city — is still partly populated by stooped men in djellabas and the occasional donkey-led cart. The late afternoon light hits the high walls of its alleys in warming hues of yellow and orange. It still feels, at times, that everyone wants to sell you something. Around dusk, the Jemaa el Fna, the medina’s main square, still goes through the same transformation: Juice vendors and the occasional snake charmer are replaced by food stalls and circles of musicians. Some things, though, have changed. Those donkey carts now share space with cheap scooters, which spin around corners spewing growls and plumes of exhaust. (My Moroccan translator and travel companion, Abdellah Aboulhamid, told me that owing to the spike in accidents, a wing of the city hospital had adopted a nickname: C90, the scooter’s model name.) In 1998, taking a photo of one of those musical performances in the square meant interrupting it while one of the musicians demanded payment. Today, payment is demanded for cellphone videos. Perhaps the most transformative change: Twenty years ago, I struggled to connect, using my barely conversational French; now almost anyone under the age of 35 or 40 speaks English (and, often, not French). The biggest changes, though, had less to do with the place than how I was traveling. In 1998, my time in Marrakesh was part of a six-month solo trip, a month of that in Morocco. What I later realized was that it could not be duplicated: A trip that came at just the right moment in my life, when I was unattached, but old enough to know what I wanted — and needed — out of travel. I replaced my $10-a-night room at a hotel that no longer exists with the cheapest room I could find (140 euros a night, or about $162) at the lovely Riad Mena. (Riads — the term refers to a traditional home built around a courtyard, but is now used for bed-and-breakfasts that are often filled with flora, fountains and hammams, and generally owned by expats — are now everywhere.) PHOTOGRAPHS BY DANIEL RODRIGUES FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Above, a market in Marrakesh’s ancient medina, a labyrinthine place where visitors routinely get lost. Below, a curving alley in the medina. Véronique Rischard, a French artist. Scents of rosewater and orange blossom filled the space. Over tea and Moroccan pastries, I asked Mr. Ait Ben Abdallah, 56, who owns six riads around the medina (and another in Fez; he rents the Dar Cherifa space), if he was the exception or the rule as a native riad owner. The exception, he said, estimating that 90 to 95 percent are owned by foreigners. But that didn’t exactly bother him. “Thirty years ago, Moroccans didn’t want to live in the medina,” he said in French, as Abdellah translated. The foreigners, he said, were helping support an infrastructure — and moreover, the very existence of the medina, where centuries-old properties were being destroyed. “I would sell riads to the devil if it helped me get Moroccans to open their eyes to how the medina is being destroyed.” Mr. Ait Ben Abdallah was born outside the city and moved to his aunt’s house in the medina at age 7. As a successful entrepreneur, he now wanted to give back, not just by renovating riads, but by educating children in his hometown, where he runs cultural events that provide arts education. He employs about 120 people at his properties. “Working in heritage is important,” he said, smiling broadly, “but creating jobs really matters more.” but not a multinational star like the chef Meryem Cherkaoui. Ms. Cherkaoui, a stylish woman of 41 with dark, shortcropped hair, grew up in Salé, near the capital of Rabat. She now lives and works in Casablanca, but consults with restaurants around the country, including Marrakesh, and overseas. She has appeared on the French version of “Top Chef” and sells a line of culinary products, which emphasize Moroccan ingredients. We dined on the rooftop of Le Foundouk, a three-story restaurant in the medina for which she consults (the owner, Frédéric Velissariou, is French; the chef, Mohamed Amine El Amrani, is Moroccan). As we sampled her dishes, including a fanciful couscous with lobster and edible flowers, she explained her approach: “Moroccan ingredients, French technique.” On my first visit to Morocco, I was unimpressed by the food, which, thanks to my budget and lack of experimental vigor, was limited mostly to couscous and tagine. This time, I sought to remedy that. For breakfast, I ate harira, a spiced vegetable soup, and fried eggs (and, as with every meal, mint tea). For dinner, bastillas, savory-and-sweet pies of flaky dough, generally made with chicken or pigeon; and, most memorably, tangia, a Marrakeshi specialty like a tagine, but cooked in a different sort of pot (think urn rather than circus tent), and more brothy, flavored with ras el hanout and preserved lemon. My favorite version, served at one of two outposts of Zeitoun Café, where I dined with Ms. Cherkaoui, was made with chameau — camel. (The flavor and texture is somewhere between lamb and beef.) MR. AIT BEN ABDALLAH IS SUCCESSFUL, Top, the chef Meryem Cherkaoui, who consults at restaurants in Marrakesh, at Zeitoun Café. Above, Said Bourrich mixing a cocktail at Le Baromètre, a speakeasy-style bar. But I could never get Marrakesh and Morocco out of my head. Soon after my trip, I started working at The New York Times and, years later, as an editor in the Travel section. This time, I could return as a journalist. Since my first trip, Marrakesh has become Morocco’s premier tourist city. For decades it has attracted travelers, though at a much smaller scale. But unlike cosmopolitan Casablanca, or Tangier, which has the chaotic transience of a border town, Marrakesh has stayed both exciting and accessible for Western travelers. In recent years, the Moroccan government has poured money into modernizing its infrastructure. It has also attracted hundreds of expatriates — French, English, Spanish, German, American — many of whom have invested in riads or restaurants. Travel media has embraced this trend: Almost every article I read before my return trip revolved around expats. Twenty years ago, I spent most of my time with nonnative travelers: a couple of strong-willed Italian women whom I met haggling in the medina; two Japanese women whom we joined up with for a trek into the Sahara; Spanish students on a budget even tighter than mine. This time around, I desperately wanted to connect with native Moroccans who were doing interesting, creative things. I discovered a vibrant cultural scene, one filled with men and women who care deeply about celebrating their city and country — but who are fighting an uphill battle against a lack of support from the Moroccan government and that influx of expats. is the neighborhood of Guéliz, which was designed by the French during their occupation. It is strikingly cosmopolitan, peppered with shops from global brands like Zara and H & M. On one block of Rue Moulay Ali, you’ll find a giant B made from scrap metal — and, behind it, a bouncer. Down a small flight of stairs is Le Baromètre, Morocco’s first and only speakeasystyle craft cocktail bar. Baromètre is the brainchild of two Marrakeshi, Hamza and Soufiane Hadni, brothers who opened the bar and restaurant in 2016. Soufiane, 34, is tall, with a ponytail and a poker-faced expression. Hamza, 29, is shorter and a smooth talker. Before opening Baromètre, neither had any experience at bars. “We had this dream of doing something together,” Hamza said, as Abdellah and I surveyed the bar, which was stocked with syrups, infusions and garnishes. The dream had been accomplished: The place is popular with both locals and tourists. Both the menu and glassware (each glass paired to a specific cocktail) were elaborate almost to the point of absurdity. I chose the Churchill, a mixture of Cognac, whiskey, thyme honey, orange, cinnamon and date-nut smoke, the last of which was created by torching the nuts, then lowering a glass to contain the smoke. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, I was, again, lost in the medina. That much had not changed. The first three nights of my visit, I had lost my way getting back to my riad — despite the impressive cover- INTERNATIONAL LUXURY CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 12–13, 2018 HONG KONG WHAT’S NEXT: THE NEW LUXURY WORLD (DIS)ORDER This November, Vanessa Friedman and The New York Times will bring together top C.E.O.s, policy makers, entrepreneurs, celebrities and thought leaders at the International Luxury Conference in Hong Kong. In these tumultuous times, luxury’s decision makers are facing challenges that continue to transform their industry — from constant technological evolution to what’s next for China, India and the West to the pervasive demand for transparency and moral equity. Through interviews with powerful and influential figures, Friedman and her colleagues will explore how luxury companies can win in a world where the only constant is change, and the biggest risk is taking no risk at all. Hosted by: Vanessa Friedman Patrice Louvet Fashion Director and Chief Fashion Critic The New York Times President and C.E.O. Ralph Lauren Corporation Speakers include: Jennifer Woo Remo Ruffini Chairman and C.E.O. The Lane Crawford Joyce Group Chairman and C.E.O. Moncler S.p.A. Carrie Lam Chief Executive Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Cédric Charbit C.E.O. Balenciaga Qiu Yafu Chairman of Board of Directors, Ruyi Fashion Holding Group Joann Cheng Chairman, Fosun Fashion Group and Chairman, Lanvin Principal Sponsor CLOSER TO THE MEDINA house-of-mirrors standards of the medina, Dar Cherifa, a riad run by Abdellatif Ait Ben Abdallah, had been difficult to find. Abdellah, my translator, and I had gone down a side alley and then through another riad to find it. The space dates to the 16th century; Mr. Ait Ben Abdallah and his team renovated it in 2000. At ground level, tables were scattered amid Berber rugs and a small pool covered in rose petals, and, on the walls, paneled, Japanese-style paintings by EVEN BY THE age of the medina by Google Maps. This time, I was seeking Le 18, an art space and cooperative deep in the medina. I passed a large “18” painted above a small door in an alley before a teenager told me, yes, that was the place. I ducked into a courtyard that was whitewashed and pleasantly spartan, and was greeted by Laila Hida, 34, who founded the space in 2013. We sat down at a wooden table in the middle of the courtyard; pieces of art of various sorts — photographic, multimedia, sculptural — were scattered on the walls. Le 18 had begun as a way to connect young artistic Marrakeshi. “Little by little the community got bigger,” Ms. Hida said. “Without choosing to become a cultural space, that’s what we became.” Within the first year, Le 18 hosted about 20 events — and now presents exhibitions, talks, performances and screenings. It has also just put out its first magazine, Chergui (named after a warm wind from the Sahara) — “without anything, without money” from the government, she added. Le 18, Mr. Hida said, is filling a void. “There was a great need for a cultural scene that was alive.” But there were challenges. If there was one reality echoed by all the Marrakeshi I spent time with, it was that they were more or less on their own. Far more than it was 20 years ago, Marrakesh is now an international city, one essentially designated by the government as the tourist destination of Morocco. But few of these locals had gotten any help from that same government. She understands, to a degree, why the arts aren’t more in the forefront in modern Morocco, still a country grappling with poverty; a 2017 study by Global Finance magazine ranked it the 75th poorest in the world out of 189. “People think that culture is superfluous,” she said. “That there are more urgent matters.” Indeed, though there are still major cultural events and venues in the city, this year’s version of one of the biggest, the Marrakesh Biennale, was canceled because of a lack of funding. After my meeting with Ms. Hida, I headed back to the Jemaa el Fna for a final dinner. I watched as its daily transformation began: juice vendors making way for people selling snail soup and sheep’s head. The sun went down, and the square swarmed with activity. It all felt surprisingly familiar. Sponsors Apply to attend nytluxury.com Supporting Organizations For sponsorship opportunities, contact Brenda Hagerty, email@example.com .. THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION louisvuitton.com 16 | FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018 Tambour Horizon Your journey, connected.