¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

woodward cohn

 

Though there had been some restrictions imposed by Congress, there were ways to skirt the new laws. "We can't allow companies to just keep inverting out of the United States. It's just bad. It's wrong for business. It's wrong for jobs. I'm talking against my business. We made a ton of money."

?

Trump returned to printing money. "We'll just borrow," he said, enamored with the idea of heading the federal government, which had the best credit rating in the world, so they could borrow at the lowest interest rate.

?

[Gary] Cohn didn't mention a report that had come out during the campaign which said the Trump Organization's business credit score was a 19 out of 100, below the national average by 30 points, and that it could have difficulty borrowing money.

?

You just can't print money, Cohn said. "Why not? Why not?"

?

Congress had a debt ceiling which set a cap on how much money the federal government could borrow, and it was legally binding. It was clear that Trump did not understand the way the U.S. government debt cycle balance sheet worked.

?

Inflation would probably be steady. Automation was coming, Cohn said - artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics. We'll manage the labor supply more efficiently now than we ever did in the history of mankind. So look, you're in the most precarious time in terms of job losses. We now can create labor with machines.

?

"If you're here eight years, you're going to deal with the automation of the automobile and truck. About 25 percent of the U.S. population makes a living driving something. Think about that."

?

"What are you talking about?" Trump asked.

?

With the self-driving, autonomous vehicle, millions of people are going to have to reenter the workforce in different jobs. That would be a big change and possible large disruption.

?

"I want you to come to work for me," Trump said.

?

"Doing what?"

?

Trump mentioned deputy secretary of defense.

?

"First of all, I don't want to be deputy secretary of anything," Cohn said.

?

How about director of national intelligence?

?

Cohn indicated no. He was not sure what the job did. He later learned it entailed overseeing the CIA and all the other intelligence agencies.

?

"You trade commodities," Trump said. "Why don't you think about being secretary of Energy?"

?

No interest.

?

Trump tried to convince Cohn to become director of the Office of Management and Budget.

?

No. Cohn knew it was a horrible job.

?

"You know what?" Trump said at the end of what had become an hour-long meeting. "I hired the wrong guy for treasury secretary. You should be treasury secretary. You would be the best treasury secretary."

?

Mnuchin, right there, didn't say a thing or show any reaction. "Come back and tell me what you want," Trump said. "You'd be great to have on the team. It'd be fantastic."

?

Five minutes later while Cohn was still in the building, he saw a television flash breaking news: President-elect Trump has selected Steve Mnuchin as treasury secretary.

?

"That's crazy," Jared said. "Mnuchin just put that out. You freaked him out so badly in the meeting."

?

Bob Woodward, "Fear: Trump in the White House" (2018)

?



greger flu 1

 

Currently in humans, H5Nl is good at killing, but not at spreading. ?There are three essential conditions necessary to produce a pandemic. First, a new virus must arise from an animal reservoir, such that humans have no natural immunity to it. Second, the. virus must evolve to be capable of killing human beings efficiently. Third, the virus must succeed in jumping efficiently from one human to the next. For the virus, it's one small step to man, but one giant leap to mankind. So far, conditions one and two have been met in spades. Three strikes and we're out. If the virus triggers a human pandemic, it will not be peasant farmers in Vietnam dying after handling dead birds or raw poultry - it will be New Yorkers, Parisians, Londoners, and people in every city, township, and village in the world dying after shaking someone's hand, touching a doorknob, or simply inhaling in the wrong place at the wrong time.

?

Mathematical models suggest that it might be possible to snuff out an emerging flu pandemic at the source if caught early enough, but practical considerations may render this an impossibility. Even if we were able to stamp it out, as long as the same underlying conditions remain, the virus would presumably soon pop back up again, just as it has in the past.

?

This book explores what those underlying conditions are. The current dialogue surrounding avian influenza speaks of a potential H5Nl pandemic as if it were a natural phenomenon - like hurricanes, earthquakes, or even a "viral asteroid on a collision course with humanlty" - which we couldn't hope to control. The reality, however, is that the next pandemic may be more of an unnatural disaster of our own design.

?

Since the mid-1970s, previously unknown diseases have surfaced at a pace unheard of in the annals of medicine - more than 30 new diseases in 30 years, most of them newly discovered viruses. The concept of "emerging infectious diseases" used to be a mere curiosity in the field of medicine; now it's an entire discipline. Where are these diseases coming from?

?

According to the Smithsonian, there have been three great disease transitions in human history. The first era of human disease began thousands of years ago with the acquisition of diseases from domesticated animals, such as tuberculosis, measles, the common cold - and influenza. The second era came with the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, resulting in an epidemic of the so-called "diseases of civilization," such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. We are now entering the third age of human disease, which started around 30 years ago - described by medical historians as the age of "the emerging plagues." Never in medical history have so many new diseases appeared in so short a time. An increasingly broad consensus of infectious disease specialists has concluded that nearly all of the ever more frequent emergent disease episodes in the United States and elsewhere over the past few years have, in fact, come to us from animals. Their bugs are worse than their bite.

?

In poultry, bird flu has gone from an exceedingly rare disease to one that crops up every year. The number of serious outbreaks in the first few years of the 21st century has already exceeded the total number of outbreaks recorded for the entire 20th century. Bird flu seems to be undergoing evolution in fast-forward.

?

The increase in chicken outbreaks has gone hand-in-hand with increased transmission to humans. A decade ago, human infection with bird flu was essentially unheard of. Since H5N1 emerged in 1997. though, chicken viruses H9N2 infected children in China in 1999 and 2003, H7N2 infected residents of New York and Virginia in 2002 and 2003, H7N7 infected people in the Netherlands in 2003, and H7N3 infected poultry workers in Canada in 2004 and a British farmer in 2006. The bird flu virus in the Dutch outbreak infected more than a thousand people. What has changed in recent years that could account for this disturbing trend? Influenza is "transmitted so effectively," reads one virology textbook, "that it exhausts the supply of susceptible hosts."

?

As soon as the dying stopped, the forgetting began. As Arno Karlen wrote in Man and Microbes, "Many Americans know more about mediaeval plague than about the greatest mass death in their grandparents' lives."? Commentators view the pandemic as so traumatic that it had to be forced out of our collective memory and history. "I think it's probably because it was so awful while it was happening, so frightening," one epidemiologist speculates, "that people just got rid of the memory."

?

For many, however, the virus lived on. As if the pandemic weren't tragic enough, in the decade that followed, a million people came down with a serious Parkinson's-like disease termed "encephalitis lethargica," the subject of the book and movie Awakenings.? Some researchers now consider this epidemic of neurological disease to be "almost certainly" a direct consequence of viral damage to the brains of survivors. The latest research goes a step further to suggest the pandemic had ripples throughout the century, showing that those in utero at the height of the pandemic in the most affected areas seemed to have stunted lifespans and lifelong physical disability.

?

"This is a detective story. Here was a mass murderer that was around 80 years ago and who's never been brought to justice. And what we're trying to do is find the murderer." - Jeffery Taubenberger, molecular pathologist and arche-virologist.

?

Where did this disease come from? Popular explanations at the time included a covert German biological weapon, the foul atmosphere conjured by the war's rotting corpses and mustard gas, or "spiritual malaise due to the sins of war and materialism." This was before the influenza virus was discovered, we must remember, and is consistent with other familiar etymological examples - malaria was contracted from mal and aria ("bad air") or such quaintly preserved terms as catching "a cold" and being "under the weather." The committee set up by the American Public Health Association to investigate the 1918 outbreak could only speak of a "disease of extreme communicability." Though the "prevailing disease is generally known as influenza," they couldn't even be certain that this was the same disease that had been previously thought of as such As the Journal of the American Medical Association observed in October 1918, "The 'influence' in influenza is still veiled in mystery."

?

In the decade following 1918, thousands of books and papers were written on influenza in a frenzied attempt to characterize the pathogen. One of the most famous medical papers of all time, Alexander Fleming's "On the Antibacterial Actions of Cultures of Penicillium," reported an attempt to isolate the bug that caused influenza. The full title was "On the Antibacterial Actions of Cultures of Penicillium, with Special Reference to Their Use in the Isolation of B. Influenzae." Fleming was hoping he could use penicillin to kill off all the contaminant bystander bacteria on the culture plate so he could isolate the bug that caused influenza. The possibility of treating humans with penicillin was mentioned only in passing at the end of the paper.

?

The cause of human influenza was not found until 1933, when a British research team finally isolated and identified the viral culprit. What they discovered, though, was a virus that caused the typical seasonal flu. Scientists still didn't understand where the flu virus of 1918 came from or why it was so deadly. It would be more than a haif-century before molecular biological techniques would be developed and refined enough to begin to answer these questions; but by then where would researchers find 1918 tissue samples to study the virus?

?

The U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology originated almost 150 years ago. It came into being during the Civil War, created by an executive order from Abraham Lincoln to the Army Surgeon General to study diseases in the battlefield. It houses literally tens of millions of pieces of preserved human tissue, the largest collection of its kind in the world. This is where civilian pathologist Jeffery Taubenberger first went to look for tissue samples in the mid '90s. If he could find enough fragments of the virus he felt he might be able to decipher the genetic code and perhaps even resurrect the 1918 virus for study, the viral equivalent of bringing dinosaurs back to life in Jurassic Park.

?

He found remnants of two soldiers who succumbed to the 1918 flu on the same day in September - a 21-year-old private who died in South Carolina and a 30-year-old private who died in upstate New York. Tiny cubes of lung tissue preserved in wax were all that remained. Taubenberger's team shaved off microscopic sections and started hunting for the virus using the latest advances in modern molecular biology that he himself had helped devise. They found the virus, but only in tiny bits and pieces.

?

The influenza virus has eight gene segments, a genetic code less than 14,000 letters long (the human genome, in contrast, has several billion). The longest strands of RNA (the virus's genetic material) that Taubenberger could find in the soldiers' tissue were only about 130 letters long. He needed more tissue.

?

The 1918 pandemic littered the Earth with millions of corpses. How hard could it be to find more samples? Unfortunately, refrigeration was essentially nonexistent in 1918, and common tissue preservatives like formaldehyde tended to destroy any trace of RNA. He needed tissue samples frozen in time. Expeditions were sent north, searching for corpses frozen under the Arctic ice.

?

Scientists needed to find corpses buried below the permafrost layer, the permanently frozen layer of subsoil beneath the topsoil, which itself may thaw in the summer. ?Many teams over the years tried and failed. U.S. Army researchers excavated a mass grave near Nome, Alaska, for example, only to find skeletons. ?"Lots of those people are buried in permafrost," explained Professor Ji~hn Oxford, co-author of two standard virology texts, "but many of them were eaten by the huskies after they died. Or," he added, "before they died."

?

On a remote Norwegian Island, Kirsty Duncan, a medical geographer from Canada, led the highest profile expedition in 1998, dragging 12 tons of equipment and a blue-ribbon academic team to the gravesite of seven coal miners who had succumbed to the 1918 flu. ?Years of planning and research combined with surveys using ground-penetrating radar had led the team to believe that the bodies of the seven miners had been buried deep in the eternal permafrost. ?Hunched over the unearthed coffins in biosecure space suits! the team soon realized their search was in vain. ?The miners' naked bodies, wrapped only in newspaper, lay in shallow graves above the permafrost. Subjected to thawing and refreezing over the decades, the tissue was useless.

?

Nearly 50 years earlier, scientists from the University of Iowa, including a graduate student recently arrived from Sweden named Johan Hultin, had made a similar trek to Alaska with similarly disappointing results. ?In the fall of 1918, the postal carrier delivered the mail - and the flu - via dogsled to a missionary station in Brevig, Alaska. Within five days, 72 of the 80 or so missionaries lay dead. With help from a nearby Army base, the remaining eight buried the dead in a mass grave. Governor Thomas A. Riggs spent Alaska into bankruptcy caring for the orphaned children at Brevig and across the state. "I could not stand by and see our people dying like flies."

?

Learning of Taubenberger's need for better tissue samples, Johan Hultin returned to Brevig a few weeks before his 73rd birthday.? Hultin has been described as "the Indiana Jones of the scientific set." In contrast to Duncan's team, which spent six months just searching for the most experienced gravediggers, Hultin struck out alone. ?Hultin was "there with a pickaxe," one colleague relates. "He dug a pit through solid ice in three days. This guy is unbelievable. It was just fantastic."

?

Among the many skeletons lay a young woman whose obesity insulated her internal organs. "She was lying on her back, and on her left and right were skeletons, yet she was amazingly well preserved. I sat on an upside-down pail, amid the icy pond water and the muck and fragrance of the grave," Hultin told an interviewer, "and I thought, 'Here's where the virus will be found and shed light on the flu of 1918." He named her Lucy. A few days later, Taubenberger received a plain brown box in the mail containing both of Lucy's lungs.? As Hultin had predicted, hidden inside was the key to unlock the mystery.

?

Many had assumed that the 1918 virus came from pigs. Although the human influenza virus wasn't even discovered until 1933, as early as 1919 an inspector with the U.S. Bureau of Animal Industry was publishing research that suggested a role for farm animals in the pandemic. Inspector I.S. Koen of Fort Dodge, Iowa wrote: ?"The similarity of the epidemic among people and the epidemic among pigs was so close, the reports so frequent, that an outbreak in the family would be followed immediately by an outbreak among the hogs, and vice versa, as to present a most striking coincidence if not suggesting a close relation between the two conditions. It looked like "flu," and until proven it was not "flu," I shall stand by that diagnosis."

?

According to the editor of the medical journal Virology, Koen's views were decidedly unpopular, especially among pig farmers who feared that customers "would be put off from eating pork if such an association was made." ?It was never clear, though, whether the pigs were the culprits or the victims. Did we infect the pigs or did they infect us?

?

With the entire genome of the 1918 virus in hand thanks to Hultin's expedition, Taubenberger was finally able to definitively answer the Holy Grail question posed by virologists the world over throughout the century: Where did the 1918 virus come from? The answer, published in October 2005, is that humanity's greatest killer appeared to come from avian influenza - bird flu.

?

Evidence now suggests that ALL pandemic influenza viruses - in fact all human and mammalian flu viruses in general - owe their origins to avian influenza. Back in 1918, schoolchildren jumped rope to a morbid little rhyme: "I had a little bird,/Its name was Enza/I opened the window/And In-flu-enza."!" The children of 1918 may have been more prescient than anyone dared imagine.

?

The word "epidemic" comes from the Greek epi, meaning "upon," and demos, meaning "people." The word "pandemic" comes from the Greek word pandemos, meaning "upon all the people." Most outbreaks of disease are geographically confined, just like most disasters in general. Wars, famines, earthquakes, and acts of terror, for example, tend to be localized both in time and space. We look on in horror, but may not be affected ourselves. Pandemics are different. Pandemics are world-wide epidemics. They happen everywhere at once, coast to coast, and can drag on for more than a year. "With Hurricane Katrina, people opened their homes, sent checks and people found safe havens," writes a global economic strategist at a leading investment firm, but with a pandemic, "there is nowhere to turn, no safe place to evacuate."

?

The word "influenza" derives from the Italian influentia, meaning "influence," reflecting a medieval belief that astrological forces were behind the annual flu season. In 1918, though, the Germans called it Blitzkatarrh. To the Siamese, it was Kai Wat Yai, The Great Cold Fever, In Hungary, it was The Black Whip. In Cuba and the Philippines, it was Trancazo, meaning "a blow from a heavy stick." In the United States, it was the Spanish Lady, or, because of the way many died, the Purple Death.

?

Michael Greger "Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching" (2006)



fiddler act 2

 

The cast, on the other hand, was in a shambles - actors sick, dancers injured, everyone in a state of advanced exhaustion. But from their point of view, Robbins was faring even worse: he was "having a hard time," in Kazan's generous phrase; Pendleton deemed him "in a torment"; Bodin thought he was "unraveling." Harnick cracked a joke in a discussion about a song revision, and when Robbins glared at him and snapped, "I want that lyric as soon as you can get it," Harnick remembered Sondra Lee's advice: "With the tone of his voice and the look in his eye, I thought: 'Okay. This is the time. Stay out of his way.' "

?

That wasn't really an option, though. Rehearsals resumed in a hotel ballroom within hours of the troupe's arrival in Washington, while the scenery was being put in at the National Theater, and production meetings continued every night. In the absence of the Chava sequence, Robbins was still struggling to find a big production number for the second act - he thought the audience wanted one. When he renewed the notion of a company song about Anatevka, Bock and Harnick came face-to-face with their "bete noire number 2." In the first, light and humorous version, spurred by the arrival of a letter from New York, the villagers asked, "Is it really such a paradise, America? / Nothing but unhappy people go there / People who hunger for letters from where? / Anatevka, Anatevka." For bringing the action to a halt, this song was abandoned after a few performances at the Fisher.

?

But Robbins clung to his desire for an act 2 wallop. Though Fiddler was successfully defying many of the conventions of a midcentury book musical - no overture, no flirty chorus girls, no reprises, no simple plot line, no happy denouement - Robbins wasn't letting go of a presumed need for a big number to start off the second half with a surge of energy and to win the sort of ovation that "Tradition," "Tevye's Dream," and "L'Chaim" were drawing in act 1. At the nightly meetings, he pushed for an occasion to put in something splashy. He liked Stein's suggestion that a refugee from another town passes through Anatevka and, on his way out, disparages the town as a "mudhole," prompting the locals to defend their home in a tuneful boast charming for its modesty. Bock and Harnick responded with a zesty song called "A Little Bit of This," which began with Golde intoning, "What does he mean, a mudhole?" and soon had Tevye chiming in: "Let him go to Minsk or Moscow or Pinsk / Let him go to America. / What does he think he'll find? / Everything is here! / Maybe not a lot / But every little thing a man could need or want we've got." They wrote two more introductory options, all three of them leading to a chorus in which the people catalog their worldly possessions: "A little bit of meat / A little bit of fish / A pot and a pan and a glass and a dish / A little bit of wood / A little bit of twine / A slice of bread and a drop of wine / All very small, small indeed / But in Anatevka, all we need." The song expressed a romantic ideal of the shtetl that Maurice Samuel and Abraham Joshua Heschel had made popular more than a decade before: that what the people lacked in material wealth they made up for in spiritual riches and communal cohesion. Though the number went through several transmutations before being fixed as the mournful hymn preceding the expelled Jews' exit, this sentiment remained at its core: both a compliment to contemporary audiences for how far they had climbed from their humble origins and a reminder of all they may have sacrificed for their achievement.

?

Through the three weeks in Washington, Robbins feverishly built and rehearsed the number, bringing nearly the entire company onstage for the sort of high-energy spectacle audiences would have expected from the choreographer of West Side Story. A villager singing about a pot begins to bang on it with a ladle, another thumps a spoon against a pan, a third plinks a cup with a fork. One by one, then in twos and threes, the villagers join in the merry rhythm making with various household utensils. Some hit a table, others stomp the floor in the syncopated beat that builds and builds, until the orchestra comes in with a jaunty melody and the whole town gets caught up in this celebration of simple means. Meanwhile, the individual townspeople - the performers making use of the biographies Robbins had required them to write - present themselves in dance. The fishmonger and hatmaker hawk their wares; the street sweeper twirls in off-center turns with his broom (a bit of choreography made possible by the skills of the man in the role, the dancer Sammy Bayes). The women in the corps, having had their opportunity to dance taken away when the Chava ballet was cut, now weave through the action in a pretty, simple-looking sequence built of complicated steps. Robbins insisted that the troupe retain their bearing as villagers. "Give me klutzy!" he admonished the men. The dancing accelerated into exuberant patterns-and performers, giving him plenty of klutzy, barreled into one another during rehearsals. One of them, John C. Attle, was knocked out in a collision one day. That hardly deterred Robbins. He worked the scene every day for a week.

?

Alisa Solomon "Wonder of Wonders" (2013)



731211b A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou

 

A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou

Omar Khayyam - 'Rubaiyat'

?

I've been asked by the vicar to give some advice about young men about to be married.

?

Now in 1848 Punch's advice to young men about to be married was "don't."

I don't agree with this. I think young men should get married.

?

If I had to choose one piece of advice, gentlemen, I would say this, that when you get married you'll find that women have an eccentric attitude towards personal hygiene.? Women expect one to bathe more than once a month.

?

Now this I totally and absolutely disagree with. I think it's unhealthy and dangerous.?

?

The history of baths is rather interesting. Well, it's not very interesting. I won't go into a lot of historical detail and bore you. I don't know.? I might as well

?

Baths really came from the Persians like a lot of things.? Like polo and cats and markets and carpets.? The Persians invented mixed bathing.? They had men and women in the same bath.

?

The next you hear of it, it cropped up in Greece with Archimedes. ?Archimedes was in the habit filling his bath right up to the rim and then leaping in.? And this slopped all over the bathroom which eventually let him to measure the amount of water which slopped over which he discovered equalled his own weight, so his discovered this principle that a body displaces its own weight in water.? And also it made the towels so wet that when he chucked it on the bath-rail it pulled the nails out in the bathroom floors, so he invented the screw.

?

Bathing really started in England in Cornwall and there they used to bathe in the spring. Now we bathe or women would have you bathe every night.?? And this can be very dangerous.

?

Your skin, gentlemen, before you get married, is like a Fair Isle sweater which covers you in its entirety. ?It has essential oils in it.? It's like a sort of knitted garment keeping your bones from sticking out.? And it's sort of edged around with lips to stop your mouth from fraying.? It's got some embroidery on top where your hair is.? But essentially it's a living breathing thing full of oil.

?

Now if you rub over this rancid oil and acid boiled up into a cake, you destroy all these waxes and oils.? And just like a Fair Isle thing and the air can get in and your ribs will rust.?

?

What you need to do is this, gentlemen, once a month, when your wife is out, strip naked.? Stand in the bath and dab yourself lightly with rain water.? It's pure water.? Just stick a jug under drain pipe of the gutter? and keep it ready. Dap yourself lightly over your salient features with a little bit of cotton wool moistened with rain water. Now nything like sort of mud or axle grease that you've got onto, you scrub vigorously with a DRY loofah.? Not damp but dry.? That will get off all the rough stuff.

?

Just to tone up your whole system and get all the sort of dirty marks off, rub yourself with a circular motion with half a stale loaf.? Bread is terribly good for absorbing grease and you can use it for rubbing out pencil.? Rub yourself ALL over and this will dry off the rain water and will tone up your whole system.

?

So what I'm saying, gentleman, my one piece of advice I can give to you about to be married is don't go in for this AWFUL pagan bath rubbish. Let's go back to Persia and go back to the words of that marvelous old woman who made the outsized tents, Old Ma Cohen, what you need, all nature needs to see a perfect clean and fragrant body is a jug of rain, a loofah, bread - and thou.

?

--Frank Muir,? "The My Word Stories" (1977)

?

Frank Muir 573b



second

 

A second can mean so much in football. At Saturday's Iron Bowl, the first half seemed like it was over, then officials put a second back on the clock. Auburn used that second to kick a field goal, and they ended up beating Alabama by 3. Now an Auburn dean is rubbing it in. Joe Aistrup told professors they could add a single second to final exams. He wrote, when every second counts, Auburn men and women make great things happen.



pryor Richard Pryor on Jesus

 

Richard Pryor on Jesus:

?

Man, I know Jesus. Shit, he lived over there in the projects. Nigger ain't shit. I knew the boy's mama personally. That's right - Mary. The girl with big titties. Pretty black girl, man. Had personality all over her face. Well, that's right. I knew her. I'm the one responsible for that girl. She wasn't no virgin either, 'cause I know a couple of niggers eased up there and got some.

?

I remember when her son Jesus was born 'cause her husband Joe damn near killed her. 'Cause she told him God made the baby. He beat her with a pool stick. Said, "Bitch, you gonna tell me who the daddy of this baby is." Damn near broke that bitch's neck. She fessed up-found out it was Jimmy Walker. ...

?

Shit, I been around. I ain't no fool, I study peoples. I know where peoples comin' from. Shit, I'm a people-ologist.

?

Scott Saul "Becoming Richard Pryor" (2014)

?

?



pollard at brown

 

He was frustrated by the amateur code which mandated that college athletes should play for no pay. Coach Bill Sprackling, who held a full-time job at the Collier Wire Company in Providence, later recalled that numerous stories circulated that Pollard would attempt to solicit funds from downtown businessmen who were enthusiastic about Brown football. Just before a Saturday game, the stories went, Pollard would explain that he was financially strapped, and that if he did not get his bills paid he would not be able to play in the upcoming game. The former Brown assistant coach maintained that Pollard "was quite successful in this." Although there is no solid evidence to support Sprackling's account, it is consistent with Pollard's business dealings in later years. His son recalled him as an "operator," who always had several financial deals going to support himself and his family,"

?

Brown opened its 1916 football season on September 30 with a game against Rhode Island State at Andrews Field. The Rhode Island Rams were clearly overmatched, but made a stronger showing than in previous years. Brown rolled up three touchdowns by the early part of the third period and went on to an 18-0 victory. That Brown missed three extra points in the game was not unusual for a team of that era. In 1916, points after touchdown either had to be kicked from placement or drop-kicked from a position perpendicular to the point where the ball crossed the goal line for the touchdown. In many cases, the kicker was forced to attempt the conversion from an acute angle. The alternative for the scoring team was to punt the ball out of its end zone to the kicker, who then attempted a kick in the face of the on-charging defensive team. Thus, the success of a conversion after touchdown most often depended on where the ball crossed the goal line on the scoring play."

?

Pollard had an outstanding game against Rhode Island, but like most of the regulars sat out the fourth quarter. The Brown Daily Herald designated Pollard and halfback Jimmy Jemail, who scored two touchdowns, the stars of the game. The highlight of the game for Brown was the outstanding play of about a half-dozen freshmen who played most of the second half. The play of fullback Walter de Vitalis, who scored one touchdown, and Dune Annan, a future professional player who replaced Purdy at quarterback in the fourth period, indicated that Brown had more depth than in 1915.

?

On the Brown campus, Pollard was also a celebrity, but he was careful to share credit for his good fortune with his teammates and the university. As Pollard later explained, "I felt very highly honored and only wanted to keep my feet on the ground because I felt that our whole team had played a very important part in my having received this great honor and I did not want to do anything which might reflect on Brown University or any of the players." While Pollard was genuinely grateful to his teammates and school, he also knew that the racial code of the day demanded that he, a young black man, be properly modest and humble in accepting this honor. Yet, he would have a difficult time keeping his feet on the ground. His brash, assertive personality took over. He later admitted that "I was young and foolish and crazy. I was Fritz Pollard, All-America, and my head was getting a little bit big then,"

?

One day in mid-January 1917, President Faunce summoned Pollard to his office and introduced him to a dignified looking gentleman whom Faunce identified as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Faunce asked whether Fritz knew who Mr. Rockefeller was, and Pollard replied that he did not. Rockefeller, an 1897 Brown graduate and former manager of the school's football team, asked Pollard a number of questions, and then he was excused. The next day Faunce visited Pollard's Hope College room and explained that Rockefeller thought Fritz's room was too cramped, with all the pressing equipment and the clothes hanging everywhere. Rockefeller, the president explained, had made arrangements for Pollard to have another separate room for his living quarters and new pressing equipment, all at Rockefeller's expense. Evidence suggests that Rockefeller later had the files destroyed which related to his subsidy of Pollard; at the time, Pollard recalled Faunce telling him that "from now on you won't have any financial worries,"

?

Apparently Faunce saw no inconsistency with the arrangement despite his earlier statement at the Harvard football rally that "if a man wants to get paid for playing football Brown University is no place for him." Rockefeller's visit to campus came within a week of a National Collegiate Athletic Association meeting at which the University of Chicago football coach and athletic director A. Alonzo Stagg introduced a resolution calling for a survey of intercollegiate athletics "with particular reference to their moral influence." Stagg maintained that "a college was responsible for the actions of its athletes, and that when they practice the dishonesty that is known to be the case in many instances, the fault is that of the college." Certainly Pollard had no qualms about Rockefeller's generosity; he purchased the latest pressing equipment in downtown Providence, selected a second, more spacious room in Hope College for his living quarters, and forwarded the bills to Faunce's office."

?

During the spring semester, Pollard engaged in a large number of campus and off-campus activities which consumed a good deal of his time. In the winter, for example, he cultivated his lifelong interest in music by playing the slide trombone in both the Brown Band and Orchestra. Late in March, Pollard performed in a musical number in a popular student-produced theatrical farce along with Ink Williams, who did a clog dance with quarterback Jimmy Murphy. The inclusion of the two African-American students indicated that they were being accorded a greater degree of acceptance by the white student body. Pollard was also a member of the varsity indoor and outdoor track teams, and quickly established himself as one of the premier hurdlers and sprinters in New England. Beyond this, he played in the student-organized interclass basketball league. Brown did not field an intercollegiate basketball team in the prewar era

?

?

John Carroll "Fritz Pollard" (1992)




woodward bannon

 

In August 2010, six years before taking over Donald Trump's winning presidential campaign, Steve Bannon, then 57 and a producer of right-wing political films, answered his phone. "What are you doing tomorrow?" asked David Bossie, a longtime House Republican investigator and conservative activist who had chased Bill and Hillary Clinton scandals for almost two decades.

?

"Dude," Bannon replied, "I'm cutting these fucking films I'm making for you."

?

The 2010 midterm congressional elections were coming up. It was the height of the Tea Party movement and Republicans were showing momentum.

?

"Dave, we're literally dropping two more films. I'm editing. I'm working 20 hours a day" at Citizens United, the conservative political action committee Bossie headed, to churn out his anti-Clinton films.

?

"Can you come with me up to New York?"

?

"For what?"

?

"To see Donald Trump," Bossie said.

?

"What about?"

?

"He's thinking of running for president," Bossie said. "Of what country?" Bannon asked.

?

No, seriously, Bossie insisted. He had been meeting and working with Trump for months. Trump had asked for a meeting.

?

"I don't have time to jerk off, dude," Bannon said. "Donald Trump's never running for president. Forget it. Against Obama? Forget it. 1 don't have time for fucking nonsense."

?

"Don't you want to meet him?"

?

"No, 1 have no interest in meeting him." Trump had once given Bannon a 30-minute interview for his Sunday-afternoon radio show, called The Victory Sessions, which Bannon had run out of Los Angeles and billed as "the thinking man's radio show."

?

"This guy's not serious," Bannon said.

?

"I think he is serious," Bossie said. Trump was a TV celebrity and had a famous show, The Apprentice, that was number one on NBC some weeks. "There's no downside for us to go and meet with him."

?

Bannon finally agreed to go to New York City to Trump Tower.

?

They rode up to the 26th floor conference room. Trump greeted them warmly, and Bossie said he had a detailed presentation. It was a tutorial.

?

The first part, he said, lays out how to run in a Republican primary and win. The second part explains how to run for president of the United States against Barack Obama. He described standard polling strategies and discussed process and issues: Bossie was a traditional, limited-government conservative and had been caught by surprise by the Tea Party movement.

?

It was an important moment in American politics, Bossie said, and Tea Party populism was sweeping the country. The little guy was getting his voice. Populism was a grassroots movement to disrupt the political status quo in favor of everyday people.

?

"I'm a business guy," Trump reminded them. "I'm not a professional ladder-climber in politics."

?

"If you're going to run for president," Bossie said, "you have to know lots of little things and lots of big things." The little things were filing deadlines, the state rules for primaries - minutiae. "You have to know the policy side, and how to win delegates." But first, he said, "you need to understand the conservative movement."

?

Trump nodded.

?

"You've got some problems on issues," Bossie said.

?

"I don't have any problems on issues," Trump said. "What are you talking about?"

?

"First off, there's never been a guy win a Republican primary that's not pro-life," Bossie said. "And unfortunately, you're very pro-choice."

?

"What does that mean?"

?

"You have a record of giving to the abortion guys, the pro-choice candidates. You've made statements. You've got to be pro-life, against abortion."

?

"I'm against abortion," Trump said. "I'm pro-life."

?

"Well, you've got a track record."

?

"That can be fixed," Trump said. "You just tell me how to fix that. I'm - what do you call it? Pro-life. I'm pro-life, I'm telling you."

?

Bannon was impressed with the showmanship, and increasingly so as Trump talked. Trump was engaged and quick. He was in great physical shape. His presence was bigger than the man, and took over the room, a command presence. He had something. He was also like a guy in a bar talking to the TV. Street-smart, from Queens. In Bannon's evaluation, Trump was Archie Bunker, but a really focused Archie Bunker.

?

"The second big thing," Bossie said, "is your voting record." "What do you mean, my voting record?"

?

"About how often you vote."

?

"What are you talking about?"

?

"Well," Bossie said, "this is a Republican primary."

?

"I vote every time," Trump said confidently. "I've voted every time since I was 18,20 years old."

?

"That's actually not correct. You know there's a public record of your vote." Bossie, the congressional investigator, had a stack of records.

?

"They don't know how I vote."

?

"No, no, no, not how you vote. How often you vote."

?

Bannon realized that Trump did not know the most rudimentary business of politics.

?

"I voted every time," Trump insisted.

?

"Actually you've never voted in a primary except once in your entire life," Bossie said, citing the record.

?

"That's a fucking lie," Trump said. "That's a total lie. Every time I get to vote, I voted."

?

"You only voted in one primary," Bossie said. "It was like in 1988 or something, in the Republican primary."

?

"You're right," Trump said, pivoting 180 degrees, not missing a beat. "That was for Rudy." Giuliani ran for mayor in a primary in 1989. "Is that in there?"

?

"Yes."

?

"I'll get over that," Trump said.

?

"Maybe none of these things matter," Bossie said, "but maybe they do. If you're going to move forward, you have to be methodical."

?

Bannon was up next. He turned to what was driving the Tea Party, which didn't like the elites. Populism was for the common man, knowing the system is rigged. It was against crony capitalism and insider deals which were bleeding the workers.

?

"I love that. That's what I am,", Trump said, "a popularist." He mangled the word.

?

"No, no," Bannon said. "It's populist."

?

"Yeah, yeah," Trump insisted. "A popularist."

?

Bannon gave up. At first he thought Trump did not understand the word. But perhaps Trump meant it in his own way - being popular with the people. Bannon knew popularist was an earlier British form of the word "populist" for the nonintellectual general public.

?

An hour into the meeting, Bossie said, "We have another big issue." "What's that?" Trump asked, seeming a little more wary.

?

"Well," he said, "80 percent of the donations that you've given have been to Democrats." To Bossie that was Trump's biggest political liability, though he didn't say so.

?

"That's bullshit!"

?

"There's public records," Bossie said.

?

"There's records of that!" Trump said in utter astonishment. "Every donation you've ever given." Public disclosure of all political giving was standard.

?

"I'm always even," Trump said. He divided his donations to candidates from both parties, he said.

?

"You actually give quite a bit. But it's 80 percent Democratic. Chicago, Atlantic City ... "

?

"I've got to do that," Trump said. "All these fucking Democrats run all the cities. You've got to build hotels. You've got to grease them. Those are people who came to me."

?

"Listen," Bannon said, "here's what Dave's trying to say. Running as a Tea Party guy, the problem is that's what they are complaining about. That it's guys like you that have inside deals."

?

"I'll get over that," Trump said. "It's all rigged. It's a rigged system. These guys have been shaking me down for years. I don't want to give. They all walk in. If you don't write a check ... "

?

There was a pol in Queens, Trump said, "an old guy with a baseball bat. You go in there and you've got to give him something - normally in cash. If you don't give him anything, nothing gets done. Nothing gets built. But if you take it in there and you leave him an envelope, it happens. That's just the way it is. But I can fix that."

?

Bossie said he had a road map. "It's the conservative movement. Tea Party comes and goes. Populism comes and goes. The conservative movement has been a bedrock since Goldwater."

?

Second, he said, I would recommend you run as if you are running for governor in three states - Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They were the first three caucus or primary states. "Run and sound local, like you want to be their governor." A lot of candidates made the huge mistake of trying to run in 27 states. "Run three governor's races, and you'll have a really good shot. Focus on three. Do well in three. And the others will come."

?

"I can be the nominee," Trump said. "I can beat these guys. I don't care who they are. I got this. I can take care of these other things."

?

Each position could be revisited, renegotiated.

?

"I'm pro-life," Trump said. "I'm going to start."

?

"Here's what you're going to need to do," Bossie said. "You're going to need to write between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of individual checks to congressmen and senators. They'll all come up here. Look them in the eye, shake their hand. You're going to give them a check. Because we need some markers. You've got to do one-on-ones so these guys know. Because later on, that'll be at least an entry point that you're building relationships."

?

Bossie continued, "Saying, this check is for you. For $2,400" - the maximum amount. "It's got to be individual checks, hard money, to their campaign so they know it's coming from you personally. Republicans now know that you're going to be serious about this."

?

All the money, Bossie said, was central to the art of presidential politics. "Later that's going to pay huge dividends." Give to Republican candidates in a handful of battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida.

?

In addition, Bossie said, "You're going to have to do a policy book. You ought to do a book about what you think about America and these policies."

?

Bannon gave an extended brief on China and its successful efforts to take jobs and money from the United States. He was obsessed with the threat.

?

"What do you think?" Bossie later asked Bannon.

?

"I'm pretty impressed with the guy," Bannon said. As for running for president, "Zero chance. First off, those two action items. The fucker will not write one check. He's not a guy who writes checks. He signs the back of checks" when they come in as payments to him. "It was good you said that because he'll never write a check."

?

"What about the policy book?"

?

"He'll never do a policy book. Give me a fucking break. First off, nobody will buy it. It was a waste of time except for the fact that it was insanely entertaining."

?

Bossie said he was trying to prepare Trump if he ever did decide to run. Trump had a unique asset: He was totally removed from the political process.

?

As they walked on, Bossie found himself going through a mental exercise, one that six years later most Americans would go through. He'll never run. He'll never file. He'll never announce. He'll never file his financial disclosure statement. Right? He'll never do any of those things. He'll never win.

?

"You think he's going to run?" Bossie finally asked Bannon. "Not a chance. Zero chance," Bannon repeated. "Less than zero. Look at the fucking life he's got, dude. Come on. He's not going to do this. Get his face ripped off."

?

?

Bob Woodward, "Fear: Trump in the White House" (2018)



Coming events cast their shadows before

 

Coming events cast their shadows before

(proverb)

?

That phrase, word for word, exactly as you heard it, without one syllable altered or twisted, that phrase was the scathing retort I made, at the age of seventeen, to Trent Nugent, who was the artistic director, juvenile lead, and theater blessee of the Willstone Thespians.

?

Now I must explain that I had joined the Willstone Thespians for only one reason. Because, at the age of seventeen I had extremely sticking-out ears. I mean extremely. With my flat cap on, the silhouette of my head resembled nothing so much as a Austin Seven with the two side doors open. Which of course made me extremely diffident with girls.?

?

And that is actually is what made me join the Willstone Thespians. Because among young men of that day there was a very widely held theory that the best possble way to get girls flocking to you was to be the star in an amateur dramatic society. And of all our local amateur dramatic societies the thespians attracted by far the largest female following.

?

This wasn't so much because of the quality of their plays or the standard of their acting.? It was due practically completely that the bloke who printed their posters was a little on the short-sighted side.

?

This was demonstrated by the enormous crowds that rushed to see their production of Patrick Hamilton's play Rope and it was a similar error which brought the house-full notices out for Ivor Novello's Careless Rapture.

?

But as I say, when I joined them for their winter season my purpose was quite cold-blooded: to work my way up through the company 'till I could take the starring role in The Desert Song.

?

I went along at the beginning of the season and presented myself to Trent Nugent. Now there was an insufferable character.? Trent was actually, in the society, more or less all-powerful. ?And accordingly it was to him that I explained that I wanted to end the season as the Red Shadow but until then I was perfectly willing to work my way up to it.

?

"All right, very well," he said, ?"In our first production, we'll just give you a walk-on part."?

?

Now that expression a walk-on part I took to be the customary theatrical jargon 'till I saw what the first production was: The Bridge of San Luis Rey. And I was to be the bridge.?

?

There was apparently some altercation with the scenary builders which meant that I spent the major part of Thornton Wilder's great work stretched out between two paper-mache rocks with hand-rails attached either side of me being walked on.

?

Nevertheless I did feel that I'd served the necessary apprenticeship, so when we finally came to the first read-through of The Desert Song I thrust myself in front of the company and without prompting I recited the whole of the Red Shadow part, chucked in a snatch of One Alone to Call My Own, to say nothing of two choruses of the Rift Song.

?

When the rest of the cast broke into spontaneous applause I could tell that Trent Nugent was really impressed. He said, "That was very good.? Very good. I think" And he handed me a script. ?"I think you've earned this."

?

And when I looked down at the part circled for me my gorge leapt. I was Third Sand Dune.

?

I said, "Wait a minute.? What about the Red Shadow?"

?

He said, "I'm terribly sorry. but that's quite out of the question.? You see I was cast for that before the season even opened."

?

That was where I made that aforementioned retort.

?

"In that case," I said, "This amateur dramatic society shouldn't call themselves the Willstone Thespians.? They should call themselves The Coming Events."

?

He said, "Why?"

?

I said, "Because," without altering or twisting a syllable, "It's Coming Events cast their shadows before."

?

Dennis Norden 573a




beer used

 

If there was an award for thinking on the fly, it should absolutely go to a German driver who was on the autobahn last week when he noticed that his car smelled weird. He pulled over, popped the hood, and the car was on fire. He had no fire extinguisher, but he did have beer. He grabbed bottles from the case in his car and put out the fire. Authorities said the fire department did show up, but there was nothing left for them to do.



pryor poop

 

Around this time, Richard fell into his first performance as a comic. In his memory, his first stage was the brothel's backyard in the mid-1940s; his first prop, a pile of dog poop. He was wearing a spiffy cowboy outfit his grandfather had given him and was sitting on the edge of a brick railing, looking for all the world like a miniature version of his heroes John Wayne or Lash LaRue. Then he threw himself on purpose off the railing, and his family broke out in laughter. A few more falls, and the laughter didn't stop. The comedian-in-the-making conceded that his routine was over and ran to his grandmother, but along the way, he slipped on the pile of dog poop. Again, roars of laughter. Eager to please, he did what any attention-craving child would have done: he repeated his pratfall, dog poop and all. "That was my first comedy routine," he said. "And I've just been slipping in shit ever since." If comedy was partly the art of self-humiliation, early on Pryor realized he had a knack for it.

?

Scott Saul "Becoming Richard Pryor" (2014)



pollard at brown

 

He was frustrated by the amateur code which mandated that college athletes should play for no pay. Coach Bill Sprackling, who held a full-time job at the Collier Wire Company in Providence, later recalled that numerous stories circulated that Pollard would attempt to solicit funds from downtown businessmen who were enthusiastic about Brown football. Just before a Saturday game, the stories went, Pollard would explain that he was financially strapped, and that if he did not get his bills paid he would not be able to play in the upcoming game. The former Brown assistant coach maintained that Pollard "was quite successful in this." Although there is no solid evidence to support Sprackling's account, it is consistent with Pollard's business dealings in later years. His son recalled him as an "operator," who always had several financial deals going to support himself and his family,"

?

Brown opened its 1916 football season on September 30 with a game against Rhode Island State at Andrews Field. The Rhode Island Rams were clearly overmatched, but made a stronger showing than in previous years. Brown rolled up three touchdowns by the early part of the third period and went on to an 18-0 victory. That Brown missed three extra points in the game was not unusual for a team of that era. In 1916, points after touchdown either had to be kicked from placement or drop-kicked from a position perpendicular to the point where the ball crossed the goal line for the touchdown. In many cases, the kicker was forced to attempt the conversion from an acute angle. The alternative for the scoring team was to punt the ball out of its end zone to the kicker, who then attempted a kick in the face of the on-charging defensive team. Thus, the success of a conversion after touchdown most often depended on where the ball crossed the goal line on the scoring play."

?

Pollard had an outstanding game against Rhode Island, but like most of the regulars sat out the fourth quarter. The Brown Daily Herald designated Pollard and halfback Jimmy Jemail, who scored two touchdowns, the stars of the game. The highlight of the game for Brown was the outstanding play of about a half-dozen freshmen who played most of the second half. The play of fullback Walter de Vitalis, who scored one touchdown, and Dune Annan, a future professional player who replaced Purdy at quarterback in the fourth period, indicated that Brown had more depth than in 1915.

?

On the Brown campus, Pollard was also a celebrity, but he was careful to share credit for his good fortune with his teammates and the university. As Pollard later explained, "I felt very highly honored and only wanted to keep my feet on the ground because I felt that our whole team had played a very important part in my having received this great honor and I did not want to do anything which might reflect on Brown University or any of the players." While Pollard was genuinely grateful to his teammates and school, he also knew that the racial code of the day demanded that he, a young black man, be properly modest and humble in accepting this honor. Yet, he would have a difficult time keeping his feet on the ground. His brash, assertive personality took over. He later admitted that "I was young and foolish and crazy. I was Fritz Pollard, All-America, and my head was getting a little bit big then,"

?

One day in mid-January 1917, President Faunce summoned Pollard to his office and introduced him to a dignified looking gentleman whom Faunce identified as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Faunce asked whether Fritz knew who Mr. Rockefeller was, and Pollard replied that he did not. Rockefeller, an 1897 Brown graduate and former manager of the school's football team, asked Pollard a number of questions, and then he was excused. The next day Faunce visited Pollard's Hope College room and explained that Rockefeller thought Fritz's room was too cramped, with all the pressing equipment and the clothes hanging everywhere. Rockefeller, the president explained, had made arrangements for Pollard to have another separate room for his living quarters and new pressing equipment, all at Rockefeller's expense. Evidence suggests that Rockefeller later had the files destroyed which related to his subsidy of Pollard; at the time, Pollard recalled Faunce telling him that "from now on you won't have any financial worries,"

?

Apparently Faunce saw no inconsistency with the arrangement despite his earlier statement at the Harvard football rally that "if a man wants to get paid for playing football Brown University is no place for him." Rockefeller's visit to campus came within a week of a National Collegiate Athletic Association meeting at which the University of Chicago football coach and athletic director A. Alonzo Stagg introduced a resolution calling for a survey of intercollegiate athletics "with particular reference to their moral influence." Stagg maintained that "a college was responsible for the actions of its athletes, and that when they practice the dishonesty that is known to be the case in many instances, the fault is that of the college." Certainly Pollard had no qualms about Rockefeller's generosity; he purchased the latest pressing equipment in downtown Providence, selected a second, more spacious room in Hope College for his living quarters, and forwarded the bills to Faunce's office."

?

During the spring semester, Pollard engaged in a large number of campus and off-campus activities which consumed a good deal of his time. In the winter, for example, he cultivated his lifelong interest in music by playing the slide trombone in both the Brown Band and Orchestra. Late in March, Pollard performed in a musical number in a popular student-produced theatrical farce along with Ink Williams, who did a clog dance with quarterback Jimmy Murphy. The inclusion of the two African-American students indicated that they were being accorded a greater degree of acceptance by the white student body. Pollard was also a member of the varsity indoor and outdoor track teams, and quickly established himself as one of the premier hurdlers and sprinters in New England. Beyond this, he played in the student-organized interclass basketball league. Brown did not field an intercollegiate basketball team in the prewar era

?

?

John Carroll "Fritz Pollard" (1992)


barkow sentencing

 

The case of Weldon Angelos raised similar proportionality objections from his sentencing judge. Angelos was required by law to receive a sentence of at least 55 years (660 months) for carrying a gun to two $350 marijuana deals and for having an additional gun in his house. His sentencing judge noted this was more than double the required sentence for a kingpin of a major drug trafficking ring in which death resulted (293 months), an aircraft hijacker (293 months), a terrorist who detonates a bomb in a public place intending to kill a bystander (235 months), a racist who attacks a minority with the intent to kill (210 months), a spy gathering top-secret information (210 months), a second-degree murderer (151 months), a kidnapper (151 months), a saboteur who destroys military materials (151 months), a marijuana dealer who shoots an innocent person during a drug transaction (146 months), the rapist of a 0o-year-old child (135 months), and a child pornographer who photographs a 12-year-old in sexual positions (108 months)."

It is not just drug sentencing that exhibits this kind of disproportionality, It makes little retributive sense for a woman who forged a $200 check to receive a 20-year sentence. It is similarly inconsistent with retributive notions for a man who lent his car to friends who committed a burglary that resulted in a death to receive a life sentence when intentional killings typically receive less. In Louisiana alone, more than 300 people are serving sentences of life without parole despite never having been convicted of a violent crime.

Or consider the irrationality of treating child pornography more seriously than the actual molestation of a child. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan has pointed out the absurdity of a system where "a defendant with no prior criminal record and no history of abusing children would qualify for a sentence of 15 to 20 years based on a small collection of child pornography and one photo swap, while a 50-year-old man who encountered a 13-year-old girl online and lured her into a sexual relationship would get no more than four years." In Arizona, Morton Berger, a man with no prior criminal record, ended up with a 200-year sentence for child pornography. One of the justices on the Arizona Supreme Court observed the irrationality of the state sentencing scheme, where "the minimum sentence for possession of an image of child pornography is longer than the presumptive sentence for rape or aggravated assault. A presumptive sentence for possession of two images of child pornography ... is harsher than the sentences for second degree murder or sexual assault of a child under twelve.

With results such as these, it is not surprising that a report commissioned by the Department of Justice found that lengthy prison sentences are not the best way to deter crime. A 2016 report by the president's Council of Economic Advisers concurred, concluding that "research on the impact of sentence length has found that longer sentences are unlikely to deter prospective offenders or reduce targeted crime rates." What makes a larger difference on behavior is improving the odds that someone will serve a sentence. That is, certainty of punishment matters more than severity for deterrence.

Consistent with these findings, we have seen state after state reduce sentence lengths without an increase in crime rates or recidivism. Seven states put fewer people in prison while also experiencing decreases in their crime rates: California, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, and New York. California is a particularly striking example; from 2006 to 2012, it cut its prison population by 23%, and violent crime fell by 21%. Texas also saw its violent crime, property crime, and recidivism rates fall while shrinking its prison population. Indeed, states that lowered their incarceration rates have seen a greater drop in their crime rates than the states where imprisonment rates have increased. West Virginia, for example, increased its incarceration rate more than any other state but experienced a 6% increase in crime.

The federal system likewise shows that sentences can be lowered without affecting crime rates and recidivism. In 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduced the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses by two levels (roughly 20%) and applied the change not only to future cases, but retroactively so that those in prison for crack offenses could petition to receive the reduction. The commission then studied the recidivism rates of those offenders who received the reduction with a comparable group of crack offenders who were released before the effective date of the amendment, so ended up serving their full sentences. The commission found that, even years after their release, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when it came to recidivism rates. The group receiving the shorter sentences had a 43.3% recidivism rate, and those who served the longer sentences had a 47.8% recidivism rate.

In fact, longer sentences can actually threaten public safety. The Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections found that, "absent effective rehabilitative programs, the experience of incarceration can be criminogenic, or likely to cause the very behavior it is punishing." Programming is often nonexistent in prison, so the criminogenic effects of prison are typically not counteracted by affirmative benefits. The longer sentences people serve, the harder it is for them to reenter successfully into society. People who have served long periods of time in prison have a difficult time adjusting to an environment that is not highly controlled because their social skills and ability to make independent decisions atrophy when they are incarcerated. One study using data from Texas found that each additional year of a prison sentence caused a 4 to 7% increase in an individual's recidivism rate once he or she was released. Another study of juveniles in Chicago found that detaining them increased their likelihood of recidivism after release by 22 to 26%.

Longer sentences also put a strain on limited prison resources, thus making it less likely that there are enough rehabilitative resources to go around to all those who need them in prison. For instance, a recent study of federal prisons found that the demand exceeded the capacity for many programs found to lower recidivism and assist with reentry. These programs include GED programs, postsecondary education, vocational training, and treatment programs for sex offenders. The overcrowding caused by longer sentences has deleterious effects even apart from the strain it places on rehabilitative resources; overcrowding itself causes behavioral problems in people in prison.

We also know that long sentences bring diminishing returns because most people will age out of crime in any case. For most crimes, the likelihood that someone will continue committing them once they hit 40 is negligible. Most juveniles discontinue their criminal activity after brief experimentation with it. People who commit property crimes tend to stop in their 20s, and people who commit violent crimes typically cease those activities in their early 30s. Drug trafficking also tends to taper off sometime in an an individual's thirties. More than half of all people arrested are under 30 for the majority of the crimes the FBI tracks. and research shows that for the eight most serious crimes tracked by the FBI, adults tend to commit them over a 5- to 10-year period and then stop.

There are exceptions. Financial fraud is most likely among those 41 to 50 years old, and more than half of cases involve an individual who is more than 40 years o1d. That is because "older professionals occupy positions with authority and more access to company resources. While most sex offenders reoffend less frequently as they get older, with the peak years for rape offenders occurring between 25 and 29 and declining thereafter, one exception is extra-familial child molesters, who do not see a decline in offending rates until age 50. Indeed, child molesters actually see their rates of offending increase between ages 20 and 40. Individuals also do not apppear to age out of gambling along the traditional lines.

But for most other crimes, especially violent ones, individuals cease the activity in their 30s, if not before. Thus long sentences for most offenses may not be doing anything after the offender reaches a certain age, other than costing the state money that could be better used for other law enforcement purposes.

Given these facts, it is unsurprising that studies analyzing the relationship between crime rates and prison expenditures show that increasing sentences does not always bring a reduction in crime. While the increase in incarceration from the early 1970s to early 1990s may be responsible for between 6% and 25% of the crime reduction in that period, the continued growth in prison expenditures in the 1990s had no statistically significant relationship with a reduction in violent crime. An analysis of the prison population growth studies from before and after the mid-1990s concluded that the reason for the difference is that the increase in prison growth in the latter period was largely driven by an increase in the incarceration rate of people committing drug offenses and low-level crimes. For this group in particular, the crime-increasing effects of incarceration might outweigh any deterrent or incapacitation effect of imprisonment.

While there is no denying that incapacitating someone prevents them from committing crimes outside the prison, if the person was going to stop committing crimes in any event because they were going to age out of crime (as the studies show), there is no point in incapacitating them beyond the point at which they would otherwise age out of their criminal behavior. To do so is to spend money without a corresponding benefit. Moreover, any incapacitation benefit lasts only as long as the person stays incarcerated. And although politicians often speak as if people get sent away for the rest of their lives, the reality is that more than 95% of the people sent to prison are released. Since 1990, an average of almost 600,000 prisoners have been released to the community each year. So any incapacitation benefit that we get while someone is incarcerated has to be weighed against the likelihood that the person might be a greater danger to society when he or she comes back out because the longer that person spends in prison, the more likely it is that his or her reentry will be a bumpy one. A comprehensive summary of the research concluded that "incarceration certainly reduces crime outside prison as long as it lasts, but appears to cause more crime later."

These downsides explain why there is now a growing body of research showing that increases in incarceration reach a tipping point whereby incarceration is not associated with reductions in crime but is instead correlated with increases in crime rates. For example, longer sentences were associated with a 4% increase in recidivism for low-risk offenders, and a 3% increase overall. Daniel Nagin, a professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon and an elected fellow of the American Society of Criminology, notes: "Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment." As one commentator put it, "After a certain point, as prison populations continue to grow, the benefit of incarceration declines and reverses, and you even see crime increase. That seems to me to be where we are now."

Rachel Barkow " Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration" (2019)


johnston Home Robbery

 

Home Robbery


Anyone who has bought a house remembers the rush of emotions when the moment finally arrives to close the deal. There is the excitement of owning your own home, the satisfaction of success, plus a touch of anxiety about whether you can really afford it - and whether you paid too much. All that is kept in check by the rapid presentation of documents to sign and initial.

Once the deed is done, the buyer receives an envelope with copies of all the documents and a list of the closing costs: fees for preparing documents and for filing them, payments to the appraiser and the termite inspector and perhaps one for a tax stamp. Among the bewildering array of little nips at your wallet of $15 here and $150 there, one item stands out as a very big bite - title insurance.

On average, the title insurance premium adds half of 1 percent to the purchase price of a home (except in Iowa, where it costs a lot less). As the price of real estate has ballooned along the coasts, the title insurance industry has jacked up prices, making that bite deeper. Americans paid $16.4 billion for title insurance in 2005, double what they paid five years earlier and four times what they paid in 1995.

Yet title insurance remains an expensive mystery. Why must you buy it? Who exactly is being insured? For what? Why does it cost so much? And why do you have to pay again when you refinance even with the same lender?

Answering those questions takes us inside a business that owes its riches entirely to the government. The product itself costs next to nothing but, because of the way the market is organized, competition pushes prices higher instead of lower and government regulations help hide the true cost. Here it is not Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market producing unexpected benefits through competition, but instead the manipulative hand of government helping the regulated insurers fleece the consumer.

A title proves ownership and it can come in different forms for different possessions. Many communities require that bicycles be licensed, a minimal form of proof that eases recovery if the bike is stolen. Every state has a reliable system to title cars and register outstanding liens that helps hold down the cost of car loans. Yet even though some cars cost more than houses, there is no requirement for title insurance on new cars. Until recently no such requirement existed for used vehicles, either, but the title insurance industry is working to create demand for such coverage.

Establishing rights to land is more complicated than it is for objects like bicycles or automobiles. For starters, there is the issue of where your property ends and your neighbor's begins.

In the United States property line boundaries often trace back to markers that are far from fixed: a bend in the river that may have moved over time with the watercourse, or a landmark rock so large that selecting slightly different reference points on its face results in different boundary lines radiating away from it. Some property records even refer to famous but transitory markers, like a once-renowned oak that was chopped down a century ago.

Even when surveyors mark plot lines from markers set out by the United States Geological Survey, imperfections arise because the Earth is curved while a surveyor's transit measures in straight lines. Mistakes are made, too. Then there is the random outbuilding that encroaches an inch or so onto a neighbor's property, or so he says. Or the easement for an underground pipe that runs right under your garage and needs replacement. And what of the rights to the oil, water, or minerals underground? Or the inheritor who shows up with a copy of his grandfather's will that says he was entitled to a share of the property, only no one told him when the ancestor died two decades ago because he was only seven years old? The land title insurance companies point to examples like these to make the case that the system cannot operate without them.

The land title companies are correct that a reliable system for tracking land ownership is crucial to building wealth, encouraging investment in property, and avoiding violent disputes. Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian economist, traces much of the lack of investment in America to uncertainty about land ownership and the failure of governments to enforce property rights. Through careful analysis of land title records in Egypt, Haiti, Peru, and the Philippines, de Soto showed that about 85 percent of urban dwellings are on land being used informally and thus subject to dispute about title.

He calls these buildings "dead capital" and estimated their value, worldwide, at more than $9 trillion. He is among those who favor systems to register land titles, saying this makes the property more valuable. When informally used land is registered with a named owner in Peru, its value doubles instantly. Within a decade such land grows tenfold in value as owners invest in buildings and equipment, creating value.

Much of the civilized world gets along just fine without title insurance. Australia, Europe, and Puerto Rico do not have it. Neither did Canada until the 1990s, when American title insurers started promoting their product to fill a need few imagined existed. In these places there are fewer title disputes per capita than in any of the 49 states that have commercial title insurance (Iowa being the exception). America could eliminate title insurance with simple reforms that would save billions of dollars in reduced litigation. Or we could keep the system, but place the burden of cost where it would be lowest, still saving billions of dollars each year.

De Soto's work shows the value in having a reliable way to tell who owns a piece of land and who has a lien on it. De Soto acknowledges that land title records maintained by government are not perfect. American land title insurance companies exploit this flaw in record keeping to sell a product that costs next to nothing at very high prices.

Based on all the names of land title companies operating in America, there appears to be a vibrant market with hundreds of firms competing for your business, which should mean efficient pricing. But when you follow the trail of ownership it turns out that five huge companies collect 92 percent of all the title insurance premiums paid in America: Fidelity National Financial of Jacksonville, Florida; First American Corporation of Houston; LandAmerica Financial Group of Glen Allen, Virginia; Stewart Information Services of Houston; and Old Republic International Corporation of Chicago. By operating through dozens of subsidiaries these five companies create the appearance of a vibrant and competitive market when in fact the five companies are so dominant that they collected $15.1 billion of the $16.4 billion in title insurance premiums paid in 2005.

The five major companies that are making billions off of this wildly overvalued insurance have too much at stake to allow reform. When a state insurance regulator tried to expose a costly practice, she became the target of a smear campaign orchestrated by one of the country's biggest tide insurance companies.

Economists call the way these five companies control the market an oligopoly. It differs from a monopoly in that a scintilla of price competition may exist, though not always. With just a handful of players it is easy for companies to tacitly keep prices artificially high without colluding outright, which would be illegal.

The big five do compete, but not to sell at the lowest price and without the normal discipline the market provides to squeeze out inefficiency and lower prices. Title insurance is sold in a bizarre kind of market that economists call reverse competition.

Just like it sounds, reverse competition means a market that drives prices up, not down. In title insurance, this happens because the real customers are not the buyers of homes and other real property, although they pay the premiums. The real customers, from the perspective of the title insurance companies, are the people who steer business to them. That is exactly what the title insurance companies tell their shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stewart Information Services of Houston, which collected $1.9 billion in title insurance premiums in 2005, reported that its "primary sources of title business are attorneys, builders, developers, lenders, and real estate brokers." It made no mention of the people who pay the premiums.

These lawyers, developers, bankers, and real estate salespeople want the highest payments they can get for referring their clients to a particular title insurance company, money politely called "referral fees." The more accurate description is kickbacks and bribes. Kickbacks and commercial bribes are illegal, so the title insurance industry has developed a complex and costly set of ruses to obscure them.

Erin Toll, the Colorado real estate commissioner, spotted the misconduct in 2004. She noticed that a new type of land title insurance in the state, sold only to buyers of new homes, had not resulted in a single claim in eight years. If no claims are made, is there any risk to insure against? It's not surprising that buyers of new homes made no claims. As with new cars, there was little reason to think that a builder would erect houses on land without clear title to it.

Toll found that the builders forced new-home buyers to purchase insurance at inflated prices from title insurance companies that the buildowned, something they called a captive company. The title insurance companies were mere shells, which bought the insurance through land title companies for a tiny fraction of what the home buyers paid, an illegal form of price gouging.

One of the big five land title companies, LandAmerica, tried to stop Toll's investigation. Company e-mails show Ted Chandler, the LandAmerica chief executive, authorizing his executives to use political influence to stop the investigation and to smear Toll.

LandAmerica went to higher-ups in Colorado state government hoping to shut Toll down. The company argued that Toll had a conflict of interest because her former husband, a lawyer, worked for the insurance industry, although in a segment unrelated to title insurance. The higher-ups backed Toll and told LandAmerica its complaints were baseless. LandAmerica was not deterred.

Peter Habenicht, LandAmerica's chief publicity agent, wrote in March 2006 that he would "dig for facts regarding Ms. Toll's stepfather, mother and sisters."

The company asserted that Toll had a conflict because her sisters were partners in a joint venture with LandAmerica in another state. That fact seemed to undercut their case. Assuming that Toll knew what her sisters were doing 2,000 miles away, her investigation demonstrated that she put her public duty ahead of her sisters' interests.

What disturbed LandAmerica the most, internal e-mails obtained by Congress show, was that Toll's investigation had sparked interest by regulators in 19 other states. In one e-mail Peter Kolbe, LandAmerica's senior vice president in charge of lobbying, discussed his efforts to get the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to "kill Erin Toll's captive insurance investigation."

Habenicht also crafted a damning letter that he planned to send to her superiors through his company's outside counsel that was intended to thrust a political knife in Toll's back without anyone noticing who had wielded the blade. In an e-mail, Habenicht described how the draft letter suggested impropriety by Toll but "does not get specific about her alleged conflicts of interests ... rather it merely identifies them broadly. That changes the media game a bit .... Now one of the logical questions becomes 'What conflicts are you referring to, LandAm? Explain what you mean.' And then it gets gritty."

As part of its smear campaign, Kolbe called insurance regulators in other states. One of them, Paul Hansen of Minnesota, recorded the conversation. Kolbe began by saying that Toll "has extremely serious ethical conflicts with the entire insurance industry." He gave no specifics, but threatened, "If she doesn't back off we're going public." And if that happened, Kolbe said, "This is going to get real stinky real quick."

Hansen made it clear he did not believe Toll had done anything wrong. He also suggested that most state insurance regulators would see an attack on Toll as an attack on them. His own superiors, he noted, came to their appointed offices with extensive connections to those they regulated and to people in related fields like building and banking.

Kolbe backpedaled. "We've tried to raise it in a discreet way," Kolbe said. "If we were trying to hurt anybody, which we absolutely are not, we would have picked up the phone to the newspapers."

In addition to Toll's discovery that no claims were made or paid, what prompted her inquiry was the fact that very little of the title insurance premium paid by home buyers went to a real insurance company.

About 80 percent of the premium is kicked back to the person steering the business to the title insurance companies. In California in the years 2003 to 2005 the five big title companies kept only 8 percent to 12 percent of the premium for themselves.

These numbers show reverse competition at work. The competition is for referrals, not the best insurance at the lowest price. The mortgage broker, the banker, the real estate attorney, and the real estate agent bid up the price for steering business to one insurer instead of to another. The New Jersey Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the lawyer whom you think represents your interests in buying is really the agent of whatever title company issues the policy.

Even though kickbacks are illegal, they are thoroughly ingrained in the title insurance industry. Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner in Washington State, ordered an investigation based on what Toll found in Colorado. His office found a pervasive system of payments, some disguised and some quite open, and all illegal. His report found a "a clear pattern of inducements and incentives. Although details and form varied from company to company, it became apparent that the inducements and incentives represented similar patterns of behavior for all the companies.

Title companies paid for lavish open houses with catered food and drinks where real estate agents previewed properties understanding that whoever handled the sale would get their client to buy insurance from the host company. Kreidler found golf outings, ski trips, and $900 dinners. Some title insurance companies paid excessive sums for advertising in publications owned by real estate brokers. First American paid $23,000 in one such surreptitious kickback arrangement. Overall, First American spent $120,000 per month on shopping sprees, football game tickets, and other payments to buy business. A state report concluded, "First American offers a prime example of how illegal inducements can help a company attain superior market share."

Washington State found that LandAmerica "made extensive use of co-advertising, gift cards, providing food and drinks at broker opens and meetings, paying for meals and giving away sporting event tickets." Over the course of a year and a half, the company spent more than $25,000 to take real estate agents, bankers, and lawyers on chartered bay cruises paid for by unwitting home buyers.

There was also, and as of this writing still is, quite literally, a free lunch. The title insurance companies take turns picking up the tab for the monthly luncheons of Seattle's board of Realtors.

Everyone in the industry knows these payments are illegal, which is why they create shams to hide them. In Washington State the law allows gifts of no more than $25 per person per year. "There is nothing confusing about the limit," Commissioner Kreidler wrote. The insurance commissioner's office adopted a rule in 1988 to curb these illegal inducements and amended it in 1990. But the investigation showed that the industry was cleverly "skirting the law by creating new schemes and methods for providing inducements in order to obtain title insurance business."

The insurance regulators whose duty is to protect the public have instead mostly turned a blind eye to these payoffs. Even in Washington State, the solution was not to enforce the law, but instead to try a softer approach.

Commissioner Kreidler, who described himself as a champion of consumer rights, wrote that despite the "astonishing number of violations" what was needed to shake up the industry was a new set of recommendations and an education program. He said he felt it would be too expensive to punish the real estate brokers and the insurance companies for past crimes and helpfully suggested that the insurance commission should share some of the responsibility. That is to say, this consumer champion decided to do next to nothing, only to threaten that if deliberate and concealed illegal conduct continued, the law would be enforced some day.

Kreidler had good reason to fear that any serious enforcement of the law would begin a nasty fight. The title insurance industry says it employs more than 100,000 people. It is part of the whole real estate/insurance/lending complex that has long worked closely in the state capitals to shape government rules to serve its interests. A regulatory crackdown could easily spawn legislation cutting the budget for insurance regulators or, worse, passage of a subtle loophole that would make any future enforcement of the laws against kickbacks impossible.

Clearly the system of kickbacks and cover-ups is entrenched and self-sustaining unless the government steps in to control it. Douglas Miller, the chief executive of Title One, a title insurer in Minneapolis, refuses to pay people for steering business to him. "I've had many real estate professionals who were involved in these schemes tell me that they miss my company because our service was better and our fees were lower, but that they are now locked into the partnership and feel that they had no choice but to continue to refer 'their' business to these shams," Miller said.

Prices for land title insurance have not dropped in California, Colorado, Washington, or anywhere else, and the indications are that these practices continue. In paying all this money for title insurance, home buyers assume they are getting something of value. As so little of what they pay is in fact spent on insurance, that raises the question of just how much of the premium for land title insurance is actually needed to provide the protection the policy offers.

Title insurers say that the amount they pay in losses does not fully describe their costs. Unlike fire, automobile, and life insurance companies that pay a claim only after the event, title insurance covers unknown events in the past and so they spend some money on avoiding claims. They duplicate the official property ownership records at government buildings and organize them not by name but by plot, each company carefully guarding its duplicates of these public records. They collect new liens and easements as they are flied and add them to their archives, which they call plants.

So how much does this prophylactic cost? The American Land Title Association puts the figure at "millions of dollars each year." Measured against the billions of dollars collected in premiums, the cost would have to exceed $160 million annually to approach a penny on the premium dollar paid. Birny Birnbaum, an insurance economist who studied the kickbacks for the California insurance commissioner, said the costs are but a tiny fraction of 1 percent of premiums paid. Forbes says that with virtually all plots of land and buildings in America already in corporate databases, the cost of a title search is as little as $25 or less than two cents out of each dollar on the typical premium paid by home buyers.

If your boundary lines turn out to be different from what it says on your deed, or your new swimming pool actually intrudes into the neighbor's land, don't expect the title insurance company to defend you. The company may tell you to handle the litigation yourself. If you prevail, you can seek recompense from the title insurer, which no doubt will assert that your legal bills are excessive and therefore they will pay only what they consider to be reasonable costs. Or maybe you will have to sue the title insurance company, too.

The American Land Title Association acknowledges that little is paid out in claims. It tells consumers that "occasionally, when a title problem can't be cleared, the title insurance company pays a claim. The industry pays hundreds of millions of dollars in claims each year."

In 2005 the industry paid $748 million in claims. That is less than a nickel for each dollar paid in premiums that year. Add in the cost of total searches and that leaves about 94 cents for operating expenses and profits. The industry earned more in interest, dividends, and capital gains from its investments than it paid out in claims in 2005. For every dollar paid to the insured for their losses, the industry made $1.16 in investment gains,

The kickbacks are not hurting the title insurers, either. Stocks of large companies, over long periods of time, have historically earned investors an average total return of a bit more than 10 percent. Shares of First American, which has a quarter of the national market for title insurance, have earned a return of more than 11 percent annually since 1980, even though the company kicked back all but a dime or two of each premium dollar it collected.

What this means is that if you just loaned the title insurance company the amount of your premium interest free for three years and then got your money back, the investment earnings alone would easily cover the insurance company's overhead and the payment of any claims. If the company earns 5 percent on your premium, the first-year interest alone would be greater than the cost of paying claims. Give the company the use of your premium for two more years and you have covered all of the costs, except for those illegal, but never prosecuted, bribes.

The federal government helps the title insurance companies gouge customers by requiring disclosure of only the name of the title insurer and the amount paid on the mortgage application. By just adding a box that discloses in large type the portion of your premium that will be used to pay claims, based on the average payout of, say, the previous three years, customers would know when they are being charged a dollar for a product whose benefit is about four and a half cents. This kind of disclosure would be a cost-effective way to eliminate 85 percent to 90 percent of the cost of title insurance and it would at the same time reduce illegal behavior. Of course, it would come under attack as more costly government regulation, too. In reality, though, the cost would be infinitesimally small compared to the savings for buyers.

Another more elegant approach to stop this gouging is to place the burden of title insurance where it really matters - on the lender. Both the title insurance and mortgage industries acknowledge in their public statements that the lender requires that the title to the property be insured to protect its interests. The home buyer, however, bears the cost.

Adjusting the payment mechanism by making lenders buy title insurance would surely result in less money being spent on title insurance premiums. Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions are sophisticated about these issues, unlike the home buyer. They could negotiate with title insurers for better prices and they could buy in bulk. They could even decide to incorporate the costs of the occasional title problem that cannot be cleared into their cost structure, perhaps charging buyers directly for the portion of the title insurance that covers the buyer's equity in a home.

If banks insured themselves it would create a powerful incentive to be efficient and reduce liability and its associated costs. Then such insurance, which now costs on average about 51 cents per $100 of the purchase price, could well fall to a cost of just a tenth of a penny per $100.

Another way is to adopt the system used in Australia and Europe.

Under these systems, the government checks its records to see if there are any liens or claims and notifies the seller and buyer when the title is clear. Fees are used to pay for checking the files and to fund insurance in the event a mistake is made.

Critics of government per se will no doubt think that this just adds to taxpayer expense. But the cost of such a system, which could be financed with fees paid by those selling their land, would surely be a tiny fraction of what consumers now pay, and thus it would be a net gain to the economy. Indeed, just eliminating the taxpayer costs ofland title litigation for judges, court clerks, and recordkeeping might cancel out the cost of maintaining a proper land registry.

In Iowa there is no private title insurance. Instead, the state government runs the program. The cost is $500 on purchases of homes valued up to $500,000 and $90 for refinancing. Even those charges seem high. As the state improves the quality of its records, the number of claims should dwindle, allowing lower fees in the future.

Legislatures also can enact time limits on title claims. The law lets virtually all criminals, except murderers, escape prosecution if enough time passes before they are caught. In most states minor crimes must be prosecuted within 5 years and most felonies within 10. The same could be done with title claims, allowing some wiggle room, just as the criminal statutes do. For example, the law could start the clock on that seven-year-old boy only when he turns 18 or 21 and reaches his majority. Placing such time limits on claims would decimate payments from land title insurance while at the same time reducing litigation. No system will be perfect, but the goal of government policy should be to gain the most benefit at the lowest cost, not to enrich price gougers.

Until consumers demand reform from their lawmakers, expect to pay 10 times as much for land title insurance as it would cost if our governments enforced the laws on the books to protect consumers and end the costly excesses of reverse competition. And expect to pay about a thousand times the cost of a system in which lenders took out the insurance.

David Cay Johnston "Free Lunch" (2007)


731204b A time to be born and a time to die

 

A time to be born and a time to die
(Ecclesiastes)
2124

The other day I saw a woman's magazine article which posed an interesting question. At what time of life do human relationships become most difficult.

I thought well, I can tell 'em what's the most difficult time for human relationships as far as the average middle class male is concerned.

It's that twenty minutes or so before your guests arrive when you're giving a dinner party.

Now I don't think any of you ladies listening have ever considered what that period is like for the host, for the man about the house

In the first place everything is suddenly out of bounds. You get these warnings shouted at you from upstairs.

"Don't sit on the chairs. I've plumped all the cushions."

"Don't stand by the window, they'll think you're anxious."

There's a pause and then, "Where are you?"

"I'm in the living room."

"ON THE CARPET."

"No. Not on the carpet. I am hanging by a crooked finger from the light fixture."

These long-range up-and-down conversations, by the way, they're another feature of this difficult twenty minutes.

The reason for the to-and-fro shouting is that madam insists on remaining upstairs until the very last moment. The thinking behind it apparently is that if you only puts her dress on when the doorbell rings she avoids any possibility of premature creasing.

You live with that.

But YOU, however, sir, you lurk downstairs in this peculiar state of suspended animation. You mustn't sit down. And there's nowhere you can stand up. Your whole domestic environment has become a sort of mine field.

You know I got once from upstairs? "Did I hear ash dropping onto the rug?"

"NO. NO. Of course not."

"You're not dirtying a clean ashtray I hope."

"No. Not me."

"What are you doing with your ash?"

"I'm SWALLOWING it."

So perhaps now you can understand why I classify that twenty minutes before the guests arrive as the most difficult time in all relationships.

In fact, I now divide dinner parties into two distinct time periods. There's the actual eating period and there's that period before it when all a man CAN do is just grin and bear it.

In other words: a time to be bored and a time to dine

Dennis Norden 545b


fiddler dance prep

 

The climax of the scene comes when, in the frenzy, a Russian bumps into Tevye. Everything pauses as the two glare at each other and, without moving, approach the precipice of a physical fight. Then the Russianplayed by Lorenzo Bianco-thrusts out a hand, inviting Tevye to dance with him. Here, Mostel's dexterity allowed him to be funny and piteous in a single moment and small gesture: slowly, he moves his pinky into Bianco's hand, expressing with just a finger Tevye's eagerness to trust his neighbor as well as his apprehension. In the instant their hands connect, Bianco flies into a toe-and-heel-tapping caper, and Mostel seems as if he will take flight. At half Mostel's girth, Bianco pulls him through the dance like a weightless kite and the men from both factions join in, their clashing styles meshing in the celebration not only of the engagement but now also of the rare and temporary suspension of hostilities. In a line, the Jews take small sideways steps and the Russians come bursting through between them, scooting along the floor on their knees and swooping in all directions. The number was a triumph for Robbins and for Mostel. The first time Prince saw it in rehearsal, he figured it wouldn't take long before he'd be sending checks to investors.

But as the work continued, Robbins didn't stage any more dancing.

Six weeks of rehearsal had gone by and the male dancers hadn't learned anything else; the women hadn't done anything at all. Robbins had wangled the unusually long eight-week rehearsal period by insisting he needed four as director of the actors and four as choreographer. So where were the rest of the dances? "Oh, I'll do them," Robbins said, with a nonchalant wave. Prince fumed quietly.

The members of the cast, too - especially the women - were beginning to wonder. They had learned and practiced the prologue's song, "Tradition," but as they entered their seventh week of rehearsals and the departure date for Detroit neared, Robbins still hadn't staged it. Given how tediously they'd labored over the simplest scenes, actors were getting nervous. At the rate Robbins was going, they figured he'd need at least a few days to put the opening number on its feet. And it wasn't going to be fun.

One day toward the end of the last week in New York, after the lunch break, Robbins clapped his hands and called the full chorus onto the stage (meanwhile, the principals were sent off to the lounge to work on their scenes with assistant director Richard Altman). He put the group in a line - young Roberta Senn at the lead - and told them to hold their arms up at a 90-degree angle and to link pinkies with the person on either side of them. His dance assistant, Tommy Abbott, helped show them what to do: maintaining their line, walk in from the stage-left wing, stepping on the downbeat of a four count, knees pulsing lightly, and circle the stage. Nothing could have been simpler. The variations flowed out of Robbins with an effortlessness that seemed casual: some performers were to shift their head position from left to right every four beats, some to turn around entirely. When the circle was complete, with all twenty-four performers onstage, the two positioned downstage center were to let go of each other's hands and lead their lines in opposite directions, heading upstage, walking underneath hand bridges formed by pairs of actors and coming to rest in two semicircles.

Robbins gave each group with a verse in the song - the papas, mamas, sons, and daughters - a series of defining movements to perform as they came downstage, in turn, to sing about their lives and obligations. Papas slap their chests with their right hands, point an index finger skyward, turn around with arms raised at 90 degrees, palms toward their faces, snapping their fingers. Mamas fold their hands on their stomachs, wipe their brows with the back of the right hand and thrust the hand toward the floor, walk toward the audience rolling their hands in a paddle-wheel motion. Robbins presented the sons with a little skipping crossover step and incorporated into their sequence a pensive hand to the cheek, a shrug, and the rhythmic swaying - the shukhel - of men's prayer. For the daughters, he assembled a couple of curtsies, some swaying motions of the arms, a series of side steps with a foot flexed and heel scuffing the floor: the moves combined an image of deference with a hint of mischief.

In less than two hours, the villagers learned their steps. "You're proud," Robbins told them as they got set to run the whole sequence from the top, this time with music. "You're very proud of your tradition." They straightened their spines. "All right," said Robbins. "Here ya go." Mostel picked up his opening speech toward the end: "And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word." The rehearsal pianist hit the opening chords, Mostel stomped his foot in time, threw his arms upward, and cried, "Tradition!" Out came the line of villagers, chins up, chests forward, spiraling onto the stage as they sang. From the house, Austin Pendleton (who wasn't in the number) was watching and what he saw forced him to change his own posture: he sat up and leaned forward with attention. Right away he grasped how tremendous the staging was. The steps were not complicated but the patterns were rich and meaningful: the cohesiveness of the circle, the abstracted gestures that distinguished each family member not only functionally but temperamentally, the vertical motions that connected the people to their God and to history. Most of all, Pendleton recognized that the number set forth the show's high stakes. "When the tradition gets repeatedly challenged in the course of the play," he marveled, "you'd know it's something huge. Jerry wanted the audience to feel that instantly. Now they would."

The performers felt it, too. A couple of hours earlier, they had been a cluster of theater gypsies, frayed and fearful, awaiting instruction from a man who could turn tyrant at the drop of a cue. Now, onstage at least, they were a community, elevated by the pride in their way of life. The scene wasn't completely finished that day. The song "accumulated" over time, as Jerry Bock later remarked. "It just kept rolling to a bigger moment." And Joe Stein would continue to weave more strands into the prologue "like a tapestry." He kept writing new lines-"a piece of dialogue here to introduce the rabbi, another to introduce Yente, others to introduce various other characters." Bock was adding layers to the music: toward the end of the song, all four separate groups sing their parts simultaneously in a folkish fugue that produces some surprising dissonant clashes that hint at the familial discord to come.

Even the unfussy staging would see some adjustments. Senn would have to relinquish her lead place in line to the dancer Mitch Thomas, and Peff Modelski would have to walk backward in her spot. Everyone's positioning and timing would have to be recalibrated once the floor contained an orbiting turntable. But the very first time through, on that July afternoon, they knew that Robbins had nailed the curtain raiser. The company now had an inkling that whatever trials were to come over the next eight weeks in Detroit and Washington, they could very well be worth it. The troupe would have to dig deep sometimes to remember that.

Alisa Solomon "Wonder of Wonders" (2013)


pryor My girl

 

"My girl, she went a-golfing, and boy did she have fun / She her new silk stockings and got a hole in one."

Scott Saul "Becoming Richard Pryor" (2014)


pollard

 

His life had been one of achieving "firsts" for African Americans. He had been a pioneer in interracial relations in an era before many people spoke in terms of a civil rights movement. Many of his racial breakthroughs have been forgotten amid the accelerating pace of the civil rights movement in the second half of the century, but in terms of breaking down racial barriers, Pollard's accomplishments were self-evident. In 1916, he became the first man of his race to be named to a backfield position on the mythical All-America team named by Walter Camp. At the time, the former Yale coach called Pollard "one of the greatest runners these eyes have ever seen." Some football expects, including Wallace Wade, Pollard's former teammate and later a successful collegiate coach, ranked him ahead of Red Grange as a college halfback. The winter before his All-America season, Pollard had been the first black to play in the Rose Bowl. As a professional, Pollard was instrumental in integrating what by 1922 would become the National Football League. Those in the crowd who had heard Pollard's name mentioned in recent years perhaps knew that he was the first black head coach in the NFL. Few remembered that he was the first of his race to play quarterback in the now well-established professional football league. During his playing days, he also organized and coached the first all-black professional team and later returned to coaching in an unsuccessful effort to thwart the segregationist policy adopted by NFL owners in the 1930s. In 1954, Pollard was the first black named to the National Collegiate Football Hall of Fame, but inexplicably had been denied entrance into its professional counterpart in Canton, Ohio. Although the list of athletic firsts was impressive, few in the crowd in September 1978 could begin to appreciate the courage and determination it took for a young African American to confront and surmount racial barriers in a less tolerant America more than fifty years before. Racial slurs, physical abuse, and the humiliation of being denied dressing quarters, hotel accommodations, and access to restaurants and transportation had awaited Pollard at every turn. Although he had often understated the extent of the racial harassment he had endured, Pollard in later years admitted that he had been "niggerized" throughout his athletic career.

Yet, Pollard's pioneering endeavors did not end when his playing days were over. In the 1920s, he established what may have been the first all-black investment securities company in the country. The following decade Pollard ran the first African-American tabloid in New York City. In conjunction with his brother Luther, he had an early involvement in the making of all-black films during the World War I era. By the 1940s and 1950s, Pollard was one of a handful of African Americans who continued to produce black films. At the same time, he established himself as a leading black booking agent and was responsible for integrating scores of nightclubs that had previously barred African-American entertainers. During the 1940s, his Suntan Studios in Harlem was a training ground and springboard for scores of young black artists who sought careers in the entertainment world.

Pollard had accomplished much in eight-and-a-half decades, but most of the fans who saw the small, elderly man accept the engraved plaque knew little of Fritz Pollard or his courage and determination. The New York newspaper strike had curtailed advance publicity of the 1978 Young Award and seemed certain to limit national coverage of the award ceremony the following day. A few months earlier, the nationally syndicated sportswriter Jerry Izenberg had described Pollard as "a genuine unknown hero," lamenting that it was "a shame and a scandal" that "young people do not even know his name." Izenberg explained the oversight by pointing out that each generation regardless of race acts as if it "invented the games we play, the barriers we break and the hurdles we clear." Those who had seen Pollard play, however, never forgot the small, shifty halfback. John Sullivan, who as a teenager in the 1920s watched Pollard play for Gilberton in the rough and tumble Pennsylvania Coal Region, recalled that he was the fastest player he had ever seen, and opponents "did everything to injure him" because he was a college star and the only black man in the league. "He was a real pioneer," Sullivan concluded, "just like Jackie Robinson." Richard Lechner remembered that at age twelve or thirteen he would scale the fence and melt into the crowd at League Park in Akron, Ohio, to see the small but magical Pollard lead Akron against the legendary Jim Thorpe and the Canton Bulldogs. More than fifty years later, Lechner could still close his eyes and see the "Titanic struggles" between the two men as if they happened yesterday.

John Carroll "Fritz Pollard" (1992)


barkow Reentry and vocational training programs are also effective

 

Reentry and vocational training programs are also effective. Consider, for instance, EMPLOY, a prisoner reentry employment program run by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, which has been shown to decrease recidivism and increase employment for program participants. The program, which participants begin within the final few months of their prison term and conclude one year after their release, reduced the likelihood of reincarceration for a new crime by 55% and increased the likelihood of securing employment within a year of release by 72%. Or take the case of the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program, a federal initiative that allows private industries to employ individuals in prison in realistic work environments and helps them acquire marketable skills, all while being paid prevailing local wages for that line of work. The program not only reduces recidivism but also helps incarcerated individuals accrue savings and payoff any money owed for victim cornpensation.

Vocational training programs such as these are critical because individuals are more likely to commit new crimes if they remain unemployed upon release, and employment is hard to come by for formerly incarcerated people. One study of post-release employment outcomes among individuals in Indiana found that, of the more than 6,000 people tracked, roughly 94% remained unemployed nine months following their release, and 78% of these same individuals remained unemployed even five years later.

Drug treatment programs have also been found to reduce both recidivism and relapse into drug abuse. A 2012 meta-analysis of 74 studies evaluating incarceration-based drug treatment programs over the past 30 years found that, on average, participants in a treatment program had a 15% to I7% reduced likelihood of both recidivism and relapse. And some incarceration-based treatment programs exceed those average results. Participants in the Forever Free Substance Abuse Treatment Program at the California Institution for Women in Frontera, for example, had a 20% reduced likelihood of recidivating compared to similarly situated nonparticipants, enjoyed a I6% increased likelihood of employment, were 26% less likely to have reported drug use in the year since their release, and had a greater likelihood of living independently and maintaining custody of their children.

Unfortunately, prison programs are woefully underfunded .and do not come close to meeting the needs of those who are incarcerated. Indeed, the percentage of individuals participating in vocational, educational, and drug treatment programs declined in the 1990s while incarceration rates were going through the roof, demonstrating that jurisdictions were investing in longer sentences but not the programming that would ultimately bring public safety benefits when these individuals were released. One study of prison programming in seven states found that less than 10% of the people who were incarcerated took part in educational, employment, or vocational programming.

To be sure, many people in prison are participating in a work program, but the majority are performing jobs to support the functioning of the prison, such as food preparation or janitorial work, which impart few marketable skills and do not improve the person's employment prospects upon release. The vocational training that works best to help individuals when they leave prison is in short supply. For example, UNICOR, the vocational program run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons which affords participants experience in carpentry, electronics, automotive repair, and other marketable trades, has a waiting list of 25,000 people and a meager 8% participation rate, despite the fact that participating in UNlCOR reduces recidivism by 24%.

Education offerings in prison similarly fall well short of reaching all the needs of those in prison. An estimated 40% of people in state and federal prisons have neither a high school diploma nor a GED, but many of these individuals need more than a GED-prep course, which tends to be the standard offering in facilities. More than 20% of state and federal prisoners and more than 30% of people in jail have at least one "cognitive disability" (examples of which include autism, learning disorders, attention deficit disorder, Down syndrome, and dementia), compared to just 5% of the general population. Few facilities offer any kind of educational programming tailored to the needs of these individuals. Prisons also rarely offer the kind of basic education that many of the people in prison need even when they do not have cognitive disabilities. A recent study of more than 200 individuals in a medium security prison in Alabama, for example, found that among the African American and Latino population in the prison, the average grade level for reading was sixth and third grade, respectively. Yet few facilities offer remedial education for individuals at this reading level. Most pre-GED courses are designed for those who are reading between a sixth- and eighth-grade-level equivalent.

Rachel Barkow " Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration" (2019)


fiddler preparing show

 

She watched with eyes as wide as her colleagues' when Robbins dispatched her and the others to wedding parties through Dvora Lapson. Everett and Migenes tried to blend in among the women at a grand affair at the Ansonia Hotel one hot night, conversing with vague "um hmms" and silent nods for fear of being revealed as interlopers. Merlin and Pendleton played participant-observers at weddings in Williamsburg in their respective gendered tribes, allowing themselves to get lost in the crowds of hundreds. As a self-described "goy from Ohio," Pendleton was amazed by everything: the groom stomping on a glass, the couple raised up in chairs, the hours of raucous dancing - and astonished more by the transference of the joyous ritual into a staged scene that he would eventually play night after night with genuine, brimming emotion.

Educating the cast mattered enormously to Robbins, but the improvisations and table talk served another function, too: as delaying tactics. Robbins was both the most prepared director anyone had ever worked with and also the most insecure, especially when it came to scene work. He simply didn't know how to talk to actors. He'd blurt out Actors Studio words like "motivation" and "justification" and urge his cast to find their "inner reality," but he couldn't articulate any thoughts about the specific emotional lives of the characters. So he concentrated on the behavior. Obsessively.

But Robbins knew, as a week of rehearsal was flying by, that no matter how much he dreaded the process, he had to get the actors up. He started by staging the early scene where the daughters set the table for the Sabbath and Tzeitel and Motel end up having a private conversation in which she urges him to speak to her father about their desire to marry each other, while he helps her lay down a tablecloth and then add dishes and candlesticks. The action is in the dialogue, the pretext in the business. But Robbins could deal only with the business - and he spent several precious hours on it one afternoon. By Pendleton's count, Robbins restaged the table setting twenty-five different ways: Put a plate down on this line. No, try it after that line. Maybe it would be better on the next line. Never mind, put the candlestick down instead. Not there, over two inches to the left. No. To the right. Switch places and try it again. Go faster. Try it slower. Let's go back to the first way. And so on, well into the night. Merlin and Pendleton grasped that Robbins wanted them to arrive at behavior that seemed effortless, just part of the reality of their characters' lives, but the wavering unnerved them. They had only just gotten started. Were they in for seven more weeks like this?

For the chorus, who joined the rehearsals in the third week, work ran more smoothly (at least at first). Robbins was at ease placing dancers on the stage and showing them their moves. And dancers, in turn, did not expect or need the coaxing and questioning that drew the best work from actors. They did as they were told, even when what Robbins told them deviated from any task they'd been given before. They weren't there to sing and dance, he explained; they were there as vital members of a community. He required all the ensemble members to conjure up character's and write their biographies. Food vendors, hatmakers, cobblers, street cleaners, embroiderers, water carriers: the research materials described many communal roles they could choose from. He mandated that they describe their ages, professions, temperaments, and relationships to everyone else in the town. One night Robbins assembled the entire company to show them Ghetto Pillow and Through Tears. And a large group of the chorus, too, made a field trip to a Brooklyn wedding.

When Zero Mostel blasted into rehearsals after the second week he started ridiculing Robbins right away. "A couple of weddings in Williamsburg and that putz thinks he understands Orthodox Jews!" he'd snort with a roll of the eyes that seemed to trace the full circumference of the globe. Mostel vied for power with everything he had - comic charm, deep personal knowledge of Yiddishkayt, colossal talent, sheer volume and size - but always indirectly. Like an overgrown class clown, he shared his jibes in naughty asides to other actors. He never confronted Robbins directly, but he baited him. One day, every time Robbins turned his back, Mostel shook his ample behind at him. The next day he carried out the same routine, only this time he gave Robbins the finger, On another occasion, when Robbins insisted Mostel stop chomping on chewing gum during rehearsals, the actor stuck the gum behind his ear and popped it back into his mouth and began gnawing lustily when Robbins looked away. Once he tromped across the back of the stage with a bucket on his foot while Robbins was talking to other actors. Day after day he found a. way to entertain his fellow cast members at the director's expense. And most of the company - especially the younger actors - cheered him on with their laughter. The more one feared Robbins, it seemed, the more one appreciated Mostel's pokes at his authority - and the prospect that Robbins feared Mostel.

Robbins silently endured Mostel's shenanigans. How hard he had to work to keep from blowing his stack, no one knew, but he never exploded - not at Mostel, anyway. He could be curt with Stein, barely looking up when the writer passed him the new pages he demanded. He could be cutting with actors - he called Everett "fatso," carped incessantly at a couple of chorus members (his "scapegoats," as they were known), and drove Bea Arthur off the stage in tears with an insult. But with Mostel, Robbins stayed businesslike. And if his own acting was involved, Mostel responded in kind. When both were concentrating on a scene, their working relationship simmered, in Stein's description, at "two degrees below hostile." Robbins put as genial a spin on their antagonism as he could when questioned by a journalist shortly after the show opened. "Mostel likes to test you when you work together," he said, removing some of the sting by generalizing with the second person. "There was a certain amount of squaring off at each other, but I think we both felt some good healthy respect beneath it all."

Robbins said little to Mostel by way of direction and that was plenty since Mostel, endlessly inventive, needed little prodding. When they argued at all, it was over substance, and often over Jewish substance. "What are you doing?" Robbins demanded at one rehearsal as Mostel touched the doorpost of Tevye's house and then brushed his fingers over his lips. Mostel offered the obvious answer: "I'm kissing the mezuzah." Robbins responded bluntly, "Don't do it again." But Mostel insisted that Tevye, like the Orthodox Jews with whom the actor had grown up, would never neglect to make the customary gesture of devotion that acknowledges the case of sacred parchment affixed to doorways of Jewish homes. Robbins bristled. Mostel held firm and kissed the mezuzah again. Without raising his voice - in fact, the more emphatic he became, the more firmly and calmly he spoke - Robbins demanded that Mostel stop. The actor relented. And then, when he walked through Tevye's doorway once more, he crossed himself. He'd made - and won - his point. The mezuzah kissing stayed in.

Less contentiously, Mostel deepened the Jewish texture of other elements of the show. When Bock and Harnick wrote "If I Were a Rich Man," they had been inspired by a mother-daughter duo they'd heard singing a Hasidic song at a benefit for the Hebrew Actors' Union. Bock went home with the song's harmonies of thirds and sixths in his ears and wrote the music for "Rich Man" that very night. For lyrics, Harnick began with the hero's fantasy in the first Tevye story in the Butwin volume, "The Bubble Bursts" (not otherwise dramatized in Fiddler), in which Tevye invests his entire savings with his speculating relative, who ends up squandering every cent. After handing over his "little hoard" in the story, Tevye has visions of "a large house with a tin roof right in the middle of the town," with a yard "full of chickens and ducks and geese." He sees his wife, Golde, as "a rich man's wife, with a double chin," who "strutted around like a peacock, giving herself airs and yelling at the servant girls." Earlier in the story, he imagines being wealthy enough to purchase a seat by the synagogue's eastern wall, build the synagogue a new roof, and take up other magnanimous works. Harnick shaped these fantasies to Bock's melody (including a verse, eventually cut, about dispensing charity) and elaborated them into a more complex version of a Broadway musical standard, the so-called I Want song. Typically, such a number comes early in the show and lets the protagonist tell the audience what she or he desires - for instance, Eliza's "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?" in My Fair Lady or Rose's assertive "Some People" in Gypsy. "Rich Man" does the same, but only up to a point.

Where characters usually reveal the goal that motivates them - the driving force of the action to follow - Tevye expresses a flight of fancy, poignant for two differing reasons. First, both he and the audience know that he won't become wealthy and, anyway, that material riches don't truly motivate his actions. And second, audience members (of any ethnicity "beyond the melting pot") can tacitly recognize that they, the descendants of struggling ancestors, have fulfilled Tevye's idle dream. "Rich Man" instantly took the place of an earlier song the team had written for Tevye, a charming but less telling number about his recalcitrant horse. ("Matchmaker" is also a complicating variation on an I Want song: through singing it, the girls come to understand what they don't want. It replaced "To Marry for Love" - which pointed out how "love doesn't put a turnip on the table" - as Bock and Harnick reshaped the score around the capacities of the cast. The melodically simpler waltz, "Matchmaker," was easier for Everett and Merlin.)

Mostel could convey the ironic texture of "Rich Man" by heaving a heavy yet wistful sigh during the pauses built into the tune. No other actor could find as many layers and shades in an audible exhalation. Harnick gave him a chance to indulge in his hallmark faces and animal noises, too, by adding in lines about crossed eyes and the squawks made by those chicks and turkeys and geese.

But it was Mostel's religious background that enabled him to give the number its fullest dimension. Bock and Harnick had been especially impressed by the sound of particular passages in the Hebrew Actors Union performance and wanted to capture it in their song: the duo had burbled beautiful nonsense syllables. Harnick found it impossible to render such phonemes in prose, so he wrote down, "digguh-digguh-deedle-daidledum." When Bock and Harnick played the song for Mostel, he understood instantly what Harnick had been after and offered to "try something." "If I were a rich man," he began, and then, in place of the" digguh -digguh" phrase, he quietly emitted a soulful half-hummed, half-articulated incantation derived from the murmur of daily davening - a "dream-tasting spiral of Yiddish scat-syllables," as the critic Richard Gilman later described this tender, primal sound of yearning itself.

Meanwhile, Harnick worried that the song took too serious a turn.

He proposed cutting the verse in which Tevye dreams of the synagogue seat by the eastern wall and imagines how he'd "discuss the holy books with the learned men seven hours every day. / That would be the sweetest thing of all." Mostel protested. "If you change that," he boomed, "you don't understand this man." Harnick yielded, and said later, "He saved me from myself."

For all his goofing around at rehearsals, Mostel could switch instantly into a state of intense focus on the work. Other actors watched him in awe, spellbound by his freedom and self-confidence as a performer. He would try anything and never doubted himself. "He can do the same thing four ways," Stein remarked, "and they all seem right."

He became so totally absorbed in his character that, like a guru walking on hot coals, he shut down the distress signals being sent to his brain. In 1960, Mostel had exited a Manhattan bus on a January night and slipped on the icy pavement. The bus ran him over, crushing and mangling his left leg. After five months in the hospital and four complicated operations, he was spared the amputation that had originally been recommended, but he lived in a state of severe, perpetual pain and walked with a cane - except onstage. The moment he came off, the agony rushed in. Tanya Everett or his dresser, Howard Rodney, would bring him swaths of cloth that had been drenched in water and put in a freezer, to apply to his leg after a performance.

Mostel's injury made his unlikely gracefulness all the more astounding. At a bulky 230 pounds when he played Tevye, he treaded lightly and could even appear dainty. Robbins compared him to "a bagful of water [that] has gotten up and started to float around." For a man without formal movement training, he had exceptional control. Robbins exploited it in the first big number he staged, "L'Chaim," the celebration at the inn after Tevye assents to Lazar Wolfs proposal to marry Tzeitel. Working on this scene had to be one of the occasions when the friction between Mostel and Robbins was superseded by their brilliance, each man recognizing - and feeding - the creativity of the other.

To Bock and Harnick, "L'Chaim" was simply a song. But Robbins saw much more in it: an opportunity for bringing together Russians and Jews, exploring their long-standing animosity and opening up, then closing, the possibility of rapport-all through dance. He divided the male corps into the two groups, putting, as one of them remembered, "the butchest dancers in the Jewish roles." Despite looking tougher, however, those playing Jews were told to keep their movement small and contained at first, to express a physical submissiveness when Russians are around. "Keep it all inside," Robbins instructed, as he showed them their celebratory steps: they hold up their arms, elbows bent at right angles, and clasp hands with the men on either side, and, thus lined up, snake through the inn. When Russians unexpectedly leap into the revelry, they slap their feet in a set of rhythmic steps, perform jumping splits, vault over the furniture, kick their legs, and generally dash about. They are the masters of the universe, Robbins explained, and their boisterousness, though friendly in this instance, threatens the Jews.

Alisa Solomon "Wonder of Wonders" (2013)