December 8, 2019

Wilpon's Sell the Mets. Fans Didn’t Like the Way Jeff Wilpon Ran the Mets. Neither Did Some of His Relatives. The Wilpons had limited successes after becoming majority owners of the Mets in 2002. But the team’s dysfunction was mirrored by the family discord that ultimately forced a sale.


NY TIMES


Jeff, left, and Fred Wilpon members of a wealthy New York family, have ruled the Mets largely by themselves since 2002.Credit...Seth Wenig/Assocoated Press


By David Waldstein, Kevin Draper and James Wagner
Published Dec. 6, 2019Updated Dec. 7, 2019


The Wilpon family, a wealthy and well-connected New York clan, should have been everything sports fans would want in the owner of a team. They were local, passionate about their game and desperately wanted to win.

It didn’t work out that way.

The legacy of this New York real estate family’s stewardship of its beloved team, the New York Mets, ended up reflecting many aspects of the family itself. There were periods of success, but also dysfunction, intense rivalries among relatives and a financial crisis that, for a time, threatened much of what the family had built.

At their best, the Wilpons, self-made multimillionaires from the city’s outer boroughs, shined as generous philanthropists who occasionally broke the bank for a star player. At their worst, they were a squabbling, disorganized clan with a baseball team that fans saw as inept and thrifty, and functioning as a vanity play for the family scion, Fred Wilpon, and his eldest son, Jeff, who has overseen a team with mostly disappointing results since 2002.

After Wednesday, when the Wilpons announced they were negotiating to sell controlling interest in the Mets to the hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen, a minority investor, in a deal that valued the team at more than $2.5 billion, a narrative that had been roiling the family in recent months emerged into public view.

With Fred Wilpon, 83, and his siblings aging, their children were increasingly wary of having Jeff Wilpon, their aggressive, short-tempered relative, in charge of the family’s most valuable heirloom. That issue will go away with a deal to sell Cohen 80 percent of the franchise that will give the family a huge profit, considering what the Wilpons paid each time they increased their stake in the Mets.

Tensions between Jeff Wilpon and his relatives have been brewing for years. Many of them work with Sterling Equities, the family’s closely held umbrella company, but the baseball team, which last won a World Series in 1986 — before the family took full control — was largely Jeff’s domain.

For years, some family members have questioned his choices behind the scenes.

In 2003, for example, Jeff and his father called on Jeff’s younger brother, Bruce, who is fluent in Japanese, to help pursue the free-agent infielder Kazuo Matsui.




ImageJeff Wilpon, right, feuded with his brother Bruce over managing the Japanese shortstop Kazuo Matsui.Credit...Osamu Honda/Associated Press


Soon after Matsui joined the Mets in 2004 and reported to spring training, he injured his finger. Jeff Wilpon was adamant that Matsui play in televised spring training games to build excitement for the season after a last-place finish a year earlier. Bruce was more protective of Matsui and urged caution.


The disagreement came to a head when Jeff, seeing a promotional opportunity, wanted Matsui on the field. Bruce pushed back. The argument grew heated and ugly, as Jeff dug in. After that, Bruce rarely, if ever, was involved with the team again.

Such accounts of the family and its decision to sell are based on interviews with more than a dozen people with direct involvement with the Wilpon family and the Mets, nearly all of whom asked not to be identified so as not to damage their relationship with the family. Through a spokesman, Fred and Jeff Wilpon declined to comment.
From real estate to baseball

Before they ventured into baseball, the Wilpons were a blip on the New York real estate scene. Fred Wilpon still rode the train from his home on Long Island to his office in Manhattan. He and his family owned and managed a collection of properties but as empires went, their portfolio was tiny compared with those of New York’s more renowned families — the Lauders, the Tisches, the Newhouses.

Then, in 1980, Wilpon acquired a 1 percent stake in the Mets when Doubleday, the publishing company, bought the team. Six years later, against the wishes of his partner Nelson Doubleday, he exercised a clause in his contract to wrest control of 50 percent of the team. Practically overnight, Wilpon became a major New York figure. His phone started to ring more often with business proposals. There were invitations to serve on the boards of prestigious charities. And his baseball team began to occupy more of his time and interest.

During the years he controlled the team, Nelson Doubleday had insisted that neither his children nor Wilpon’s have a role within the team. Insiders at the time said it was well known that the purpose of the rule to was exclude Jeff Wilpon, who had played baseball at Palm Beach State College and was even drafted twice by major league organizations.

“Doubleday was very hard on Jeff,” one executive said.

But when Fred Wilpon and his relatives bought the remaining 50 percent of the Mets from Doubleday 2002, for about $135 million, he also cleared the way for Jeff to take a more active role in team affairs. Jeff quickly emerged as a dominant figure. Jeff’s siblings, who attended Brown University, never had much interest in sports. For Jeff, though, running the team was a dream job.

And few would have complained about the Wilpons’ hands-on management style had the team been successful. But since the Wilpons assumed full control of the team nearly two decades ago, the Mets have made the playoffs only three times. They have not won the World Series since 1986, despite the financial advantages of playing in the country’s largest market. During that same period, the Yankees have been to the postseason 14 times and won the 2009 World Series, their fifth championship in 13 years.

Image
Jeff Wilpon, a former college prospect, liked to promote his playing ability.Credit...Andres Leighton/Associated Press


Both Jeff and his father, who played high school baseball and basketball with Sandy Koufax, the Hall of Fame pitcher, fashioned themselves as baseball experts. Their involvement in the operations of the team often had few limits.

Fred Wilpon liked to watch pitchers throw their bullpen sessions, and sometimes interacted during the process. “Fred knows just enough to be dangerous,” one former pitching coach said. If a player on the major league roster got injured, Jeff would weigh in on which minor-league affiliate would host the player’s rehabilitation assignment. Jeff liked to be informed about all roster moves, even those in the low minor leagues.

Fred also liked to talk to his manager in his office before games. He once suggested to Terry Collins, who managed the Mets from 2011 to 2017, and his pitching coach Dan Warthen, that they call pitches from the dugout. Gracious and collegial in public, he sometimes yelled in baseball meetings, and would ask derisively about a struggling player, “Who scouted him?”

In an era when front-office employees in the majors are screened extensively for their skills with math and advanced statistics, Fred Wilpon, a friend of Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, once asked that Christie’s son, Andrew, be hired as an intern. Andrew, a former Princeton University baseball player, now works in the team’s scouting department.
A micromanaged team

In conversation, Jeff Wilpon often drops the names of former baseball greats with whom he speaks and plays golf. He regularly cozied up to star players in the clubhouse, and occasionally spoke to players or coaches about their performance in the tunnel connecting the team’s dugout and the locker room.

There were other puzzling incidents. One star player recalled how Jeff flipped a new baseball glove toward him one day and instructed him to break it in. (The player ignored the command.) And in July, the Mets traded the pitcher Jason Vargas to the Philadelphia Phillies for payroll relief and a light-hitting minor league catcher with little value named Austin Bossart. Bossart, some in the organization noticed, had played baseball with Jeff Wilpon’s son on the University of Pennsylvania baseball team.

Former executives said the team changed philosophies from year to year, and sometimes from month to month.

“We were never given a clear number for the payroll,” one official said. Recalling how Fred Wilpon handled matters, the official said, “In January, he would say, ‘O.K., you’ve got more money to spend.’ Well, we wished we had known that in November when it counts.”

There were occasional successes. One of Jeff’s initial duties was to oversee construction of the Brooklyn Cyclones’ stadium in Coney Island, and then the much larger project to build Citi Field. The stadium is now considered first-rate, but it hit some early bumps. When it opened, Mets fans complained that the stadium celebrated the team Fred Wilpon had worshiped as a child, the Brooklyn Dodgers, more than the Mets. The fences were initially so far from home plate that Mets batters, who played there most often, struggled and free agents cited it as a reason to stay away from the club. Eventually, the Wilpons added a Mets Hall of Fame and moved the fences in.

In 2014, Jeff Wilpon was accused of gender discrimination by a former director of ticket sales who said he had chided her for being pregnant while single. There were several witnesses to the incidents, and the Mets ultimately agreed to a financial settlement in March 2015 that resolved the complaint.

Image
Fred Wilpon rarely has talked to reporters but regularly has attended games.Credit...Julie Jacobson/Associated Press


And yet, even as the Mets and the Wilpons fumbled along, fans tended to embrace the team’s identity as the idiosyncratic but more approachable member of New York’s baseball universe. Then, in December 2008, everything changed.

With the country tumbling through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the world was introduced to Bernard L. Madoff, a New York investor who was revealed to have been running one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Madoff’s investors included dozens of boldfaced names and institutions, many of whom were ruined by his fraud. The investors also included the Wilpon family.

Wilpon and his brother in law, Saul Katz, had over 500 accounts with Madoff, according to one analysis. They were sued for $1 billion by the trustee for the victims who claimed they knew, or should have known, that Madoff’s returns were fraudulent.

The collapse of Madoff’s fund changed everything for Wilpon and Katz, depriving them of an automatic source of income that had helped plug the financial holes of their often struggling baseball team. Hundreds of millions of dollars — even some deferred payments owed to Mets players — had been invested with Madoff and his magical guaranteed 15 percent, or better, return.

As the Madoff scandal unfolded, and the broader Wilpon family empire was forced to pay a multimillion-dollar settlement by the trustee unwinding the fraud, the Wilpons struggled to maintain control of the Mets. The family resorted to taking out at least $65 million in loans just to meet payroll and other obligations, including $25 million from their fellow owners in Major League Baseball. After years of costly litigation, the Wilpons agreed to pay $61 million to the trustee.

Since the Madoff crisis, and as Fred Wilpon and his siblings and relatives approached their 80th birthdays, the decision for the family to relinquish control of the Mets seemed almost inevitable. Since 2011, the Wilpons have been seeking investors to help carry its financial burdens.

When the Wilpons first invested in the Mets, baseball was a mostly harmless dalliance for wealthy businessmen. Now it is an $10 billion-a-year business, with huge risks. People familiar with the team’s finances said the Mets have lost more than $60 million during each of the past two seasons, as the team struggled to attract fans, and they are at the limit of debt allowed by Major League Baseball rules.

In 2012, with the economy rebounding, the Mets sold 12 minority shares in the team, including one to Cohen, raising $240 million. That enabled them to pay back loans that were overdue.

Their two-thirds ownership of Sportsnet New York, the regional sports network, has helped cover financial shortfalls related to the team, which is now carrying hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, exacerbating tension between Jeff Wilpon and his relatives. In recent months, selling the franchise became the most equitable way to divide up the asset among the Wilpon family members.

When the deal with Cohen closes, however, the Wilpon family will be reduced to minority investors in the team. According to the deal, Fred and Jeff Wilpon will maintain what figure to be largely ceremonial roles during a transition period. And then the Wilpon clan will once more be just another New York real-estate family with a closely held company that, like all real-estate families, wins some and loses some.


Kevin Draper is a sports business reporter, covering the leagues, owners, unions, stadiums and media companies behind the games. Prior to joining The Times, he was an editor at Deadspin. @kevinmdraper
James Wagner has covered baseball — the Mets for two and a half years and now the Yankees — for The New York Times since June 2016. Previously he worked at The Washington Post for six years, including four covering the Nationals. @ByJamesWagnerFacebook

NY TIMES

The Mets’ Would-Be Rescuer Is Far From a Hero
Steven Cohen’s bid for the team may thrill fans tired of the Wilpon era, but his billions come with baggage.

Steven A. Cohen is seeking controlling interest in the Mets and has proposed to let Fred and Jeff Wilpon remain in executive roles for five years.Credit...Lucy Nicholson/Reuters


By Michael Powell


New York City being New York City, and the Mets being the Mets, it was inevitable that a master of the universe would finally push the penurious Wilpon family into the mists of history.


That this master of the universe is Steven A. Cohen, a financier who is not unduly burdened by ethics and who sidestepped criminal indictment, is more or less perfect for this city, this team and this age.


Cohen commands a great pile of stones in Greenwich, Conn. — a palazzo with more bedrooms and more bathrooms than you could count in this and another lifetime — donates vast sums to the art world and to children’s health, and is worth many billions of dollars.


Under the terms of his proposed deal for controlling interest in the Mets, he would take the helm of the team even while the Wilpons retain putative control for five years. As Cohen is a raptor’s raptor, I would bet a large sum of money I don’t have that the Wilpons will quickly become potted plants.

Mets fans, and I speak as a lifelong member of this sect, are likely to react to this news with glee. This week they watched Zack Wheeler, one of the better No. 3 starters in baseball, walk away to the Mets’ chief competition, the Philadelphia Phillies, without his longtime team bothering to put in a bid for his services.


A new owner who will burn bonfires of his cash in pursuit of a championship is like water falling on the desert of Mets fandom.


Some might see this as myopia by fans, and maybe that’s right, even though it reflects a sporting commonplace. The population of team-owning oligarchs contains its fair share of those with mysterious and unsightly fortunes. It’s worth recalling that the other baseball team in town was long run by a (later pardoned) felon who obstructed justice.


He did, however, put out a fine baseball team. ¿Que serĂ¡, serĂ¡?


Before relativistic spin leaves me dizzy, it’s worth tarrying a few minutes on the fellow who is likely to soon take control of my Mets. The process by which Cohen could ascend his throne is multifold: Major League Baseball will figuratively pat him down, and he must pass through several committees and obtain a two-thirds vote of the team owners. Nothing is certain, although my guess is that far more attention will be paid to the billions in his wallet than to the considerable taint of his business transgressions.


Cohen ran SAC Capital Advisors, which year after year produced wondrous returns. CNBC analysts felt something akin to awe and all but prostrated themselves. (It’s perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the Wilpons were cast upon a reef for not dissimilar reasons, after they placed touching faith in the fantastical returns produced by their friend Bernie Madoff.)


A shrewd fellow, Cohen constructed a carefully decentralized operation with about 140 small teams. He waved his figurative garden hose and sprayed these teams with hundreds of millions of investment dollars. His rule was simple: Make money, or get lost.

As these teams enjoyed autonomy, Cohen retained two lovely words: plausible deniability.

Alas, federal regulators came knocking about seven years ago and began to indict some of his top employees. A Securities and Exchange Commission filing reported that Cohen — surprise! — was more attentive than he had let on. “Faced with red flags of potentially unlawful conduct by employees under his supervision, Cohen allowed his traders to execute the recommended trades and stood by,” the filing stated.


Not that this fazed Cohen’s investors, who continued to pour money into the many-gallon jug that was SAC.

For a while, it appeared that Cohen might face the possibility of spending a few years living rent-free in a federal facility. Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, oversaw the investigation, and while he declined at that time to answer specific questions about Cohen, he characteristically thumped his chest.

“I don’t see anyone that’s too big to indict,” the prosecutor said then. “No one is too big to jail.”

As often happened with federal prosecutors, Bharara talked a better game than he prosecuted. Eight employees of SAC fell, but Cohen stepped away virtually untouched. He was, in essence, given a child’s timeout, a mandatory two-year hiatus from managing money.

Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica has written much of Cohen, including for The New York Times, and he later wrote a book exploring the Justice Department’s failures to prosecute executives. I called him and asked about this oligarch’s decision to inhale the Mets.

“When we let rich malefactors skate free,” he told me, “they take over ball clubs, are feted as philanthropists and even can ascend to the highest position in American government.”


Cohen is one short of that trifecta. His friends insist he has a rich sense of humor. I don’t doubt that. In fact, I would wager that when the hapless Wilpons agreed to give him control of the club if only he would let them remain in de facto control for another five years, he nodded and smiled broadly.

December 7, 2019




U.S. Added 266,000 Jobs in November. Here’s the Bottom Line.

The Labor Department’s report was much stronger than the one last month, helped by the end of a General Motors strike.


Credit...Scott Olson/Getty Images


America’s job engine has again defied jittery stock traders, bearish forecasters and blue-ribbon economists to deliver eye-catching gains and power an exceptionally resilient economy.
November’s reassuring employment report, released Friday by the Labor Department, featured payroll increases of 266,000 and offered a counterpoint to recent anxieties about an escalating trade war and a weakening global economy.
“I think that this report is a real blockbuster,” said Daniel Zhao, senior economist at the career site Glassdoor. “Payrolls smashed expectations.”


At 3.5 percent, November was the 21st consecutive month with an unemployment rate of 4 percent or lower. Revisions to earlier estimates brought the average monthly payroll gain for the past three months to 205,000, a substantial achievement for the 11th year of an economic expansion.


The hearty performance presented President Trump with something to showcase during a week when he fielded criticism for fueling trade tensions with Argentina, Brazil, China and European allies. Abroad, foreign leaders were caught on camera taking gibes at the president, while at home, congressional Democrats pressed ahead with plans that could result in an impeachment vote before the end of the year.
At the moment, many Americans are more focused on expanding payrolls and fatter paychecks, and in that respect, Mr. Trump has delivered. “It’s the economy, stupid,” he wrote on Twitter just before the report’s release.







NY TIMES






December 6, 2019


Billie Eilish and the Changing Face of Pop





NEW YORKER

While performing at Coachella, earlier this month, the singer-songwriter Billie Eilish forgot the words to her song “All Good Girls Go to Hell.” Eilish, who is only seventeen, didn’t seem especially bothered by the lapse. She exuded a cool girl’s sprezzatura, style as nonchalance. Mumbling a little, Eilish wheeled around the stage, like a spinning top about to give out, and then hiked up her shorts, which, baggy and long, were messing with her torque. “Fuck,” she said, turning her back and her mood-ring-gray hair to the audience, “What the fuck are the words, though?” The mistake was so charming that it did not seem like a mistake at all. The audience yelped and the Internet squealed. “I love this,” one YouTube commenter said, below a clip of the performance. “She made it sound like it should have been a part of the song.”
Such reactions are the product of more than your average fan worship. I watch the clip of Eilish and feel a strange reassurance. If the teen idols of the nineties or two-thousands had cursed during a performance, they would have been excommunicated by the pop powers that be. Pop stardom, at the turn of the millennium, was an aggressively packaged and censorious business, necessarily hostile to the unplanned and instinctive, to the performance of anything like whimsy. The teens we revered moved in militaristic phalanxes, and, though they were forced to dress and live as virginal sex kittens, they seemed like robots programmed never to act out.
With her album “When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?,” which came out in March, Eilish became the first artist born in the two-thousands to rank No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. As its ruminative title suggests, the record is about teen angst, leavened by Eilish’s humor and by her fluency in ironic Internet shorthands. The album opens with “!!!!!!!,” a fourteen-second clip of Eilish giggling with her producing partner and elder brother, Finneas, as they make an announcement: “I have taken out my Invisalign, and this is the album.” Later, on “Bury a Friend,” Eilish samples the rough music of a dental drill used during her actual orthodontist appointment; Eilish has described the song as being written from the perspective of a monster hiding underneath the bed. In the music video, the whites of Eilish’s eyes are blacked out. In a sequence in a rubber room, her back is stabbed with syringes. Often, the darkness feels like satire: the song “My Strange Addiction” (“My doctors can’t explain / My symptoms or my pain”) takes its title from a TLC reality show and samples a scene from “The Office.”
Billie Eilish Pirate Baird O’Connell was born in Highland Park, Los Angeles, “three months after 9/11,” according to a profile of the singer in The Fader. She and Finneas, who is four years her senior, were homeschooled by their parents, who are both working actors. Eilish started writing music when she was eleven. Her freakish precocity recalls that of Taylor Swift, who was a strong enough songwriter to sign a record deal at fourteen. But Eilish has a husky, slurring voice that she can thin out to reedy. In subject and in tone she’s more like Regina Spektor or the godmother of West Coast weariness, Lana Del Rey (with whom she has in common a dalliance with hip-hop). Growing up, Eilish watched the film “Spice World” obsessively, not realizing that the girl group in the movie was real. She struggled with feelings of social inadequacy. “My 11-year-old brain was so sad and I didn’t know how to deal with it,” she told Billboard. She has a cinematic, out-of-body approach to songwriting; Eilish imagines herself as a sneaky jinn or a bored wallflower and then writes what she sees.
Finneas and Eilish have developed an anti-Svengali relationship; the two collaborate on a single, shared persona. In 2015, when she was thirteen, Eilish posted her breakout song, “Ocean Eyes,” to Soundcloud. The song had been written by her brother for his band, but Eilish convincingly translated the maudlin dreaminess of lyrics like “Burning cities and napalm skies / fifteen flares inside those ocean eyes.” The track blew up. Today, she has an enormous following among smart and jaded teen-age girls; in January, her music reached a billion streams on Spotify. Her skittish shuffle-step and spooky melodies are now getting radio play, too, but she remains an Internet phenomenon.
Eilish’s expression droops, and her eyes tilt upward like those of a possessed doll. Her quasi-goth style and horrorcore videos have prompted some critics to warn parents to “beware the pop princesses romanticizing death.” I’d argue that Eilish’s creepy confrontations of loss, fear, uncertainty, and death are just what younger listeners need. A generation that was born into a war and is accustomed to having videos of massacres autoplay on their devices should have limited patience for prefab bubblegum pop.
Eilish provides a covertly girlish perspective on the current male-dominated wave of moody, and pessimistic, “sad pop” music. But she has resisted gendered marketing of her music, and her songs mock teen-girl affectations even as some of them are about pining after a boy. She starts off the track “You Should See Me in a Crown” using a sexy baby voice, which dissolves into a sound that is pleasingly sinister. Like Lorde, the young gadfly she most resembles, Eilish has a severity to her. She sings to those of her generation who have grown exhausted by pill-popping numbness—on the song “Xanny,” she observes, “They just keep doing nothing / Too intoxicated to be scared”—and posits that what is actually seditious is to feel.
Eilish aspires to be “genreless,” a byword among young musicians who think that boundaries are passe. “I don’t want to be in the pop world,” she told the Times reporter Joe Coscarelli, over Facetime, in the “Diary of a Song” video series. Too late. The throne for a Gen Z pop royal is open and available. But if Eilish is the future of pop, as some have predicted, it is because pop is a changed sector, one that is ready to abandon materialist concerns and attend to existential ones.


Billie Eilish Redefines Teen-Pop Stardom on a Haunted, Heartfelt Debut Album


JON PARELES, NY TIMES

Credit...Joseph Okpako/WireImage, via Getty Images
When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?
NYT Critic's Pick
“I’m the bad guy,” Billie Eilish declares in “Bad Guy,” the first song on her debut album, “When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?”; then the music pauses to splice in one spoken, very teenage syllable: “Duh!” You can hear the eyeroll.
Eilish, 17, has spent the last few years establishing herself as the negation of what a female teen-pop star used to be. She doesn’t play innocent, or ingratiating, or flirtatious, or perky, or cute. Instead, she’s sullen, depressive, death-haunted, sly, analytical and confrontational, all without raising her voice.
On singles and EPs, like her 2017 EP “Don’t Smile at Me,” Eilish’s songs have treated love as a power struggle, an absurd game, and a destructive obsession, racking up more than a billion streams from listeners who apparently share her sentiments. On her Instagram page, which has more than 15 million followers, she is brusquely anti-fashion, swaddling herself in shapeless, oversized, boldly colored clothes and making silly or ghoulish faces. “I do what I want when I’m wanting to/My soul so cynical,” she notes in “Bad Guy.” But that’s just her starting point. While Eilish’s previous releases have featured her flinty, defensive side, her debut album also admits to sorrows and vulnerabilities.
Billie Eilish - "bad guy"Credit...CreditVideo by BillieEilishVEVO
In some ways the album arrives as a continuation, not an introduction. Like her previous releases, it’s the work of a very small, decidedly innovative family team. Eilish writes and records her songs with her older brother, Finneas O’Connell, working largely at home. The sound they have built for her is sparse with instrumentation and large with implication. A typical track uses just a handful of parts, nearly all of them electronic: a bass line, a beat, only enough keyboard notes to sketch a harmony. Eilish sings barely above a whisper, a signal of intimacy.
But at any moment, the tracks are likely to flaunt their artificiality: adding samples or sound effects, distorting her voice, suddenly deploying a big bass drop. “Wish You Were Gay” — a guy is ignoring her, and she wishes he was indifferent to her gender rather than her in particular — starts with just acoustic-guitar chords and her voice, tokens of pop sincerity. But the mix also includes a tittering audience and applause at the end, insisting that the song is archly theatrical. In Eilish’s digital-native universe, it’s impossible to pretend that anything is unobserved or unmediated; everything is self-conscious.
Image
Credit...Darkroom/Interscope Records
While albums in the streaming era aren’t always made to be heard as a whole, “When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?” traces a clear arc: from bravado to melancholy. Early in the album are songs like “You Should See Me in a Crown” — an ominously assured, sustained and then slamming claim to power — and the mocking, music-hall flavored “All the Good Girls Go to Hell,” as well as “Xanny,” a ballad that disdains the trendy overuse of the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. But with a stretch of songs near the end of the album, Eilish turns to thoughts of grief, suicide and loneliness.
“Bury a Friend,” with a pulsing, nervous undercurrent and sampled screams, veers between mourning, lashing out and self-destructive thoughts. “Ilomilo” has a briskly plinking, near-ska beat, but it worries over a suicidal friend: “I might break/If you’re gonna die not by mistake.” In “Listen Before I Go,” a glacial piano ballad with looming reverberations, the narrator herself is suicidal; “Sorry, can’t save me,” she warns, and sirens at the end suggest the worst. It’s followed by the whispery “I Love You,” a hovering, hesitant confession: “I don’t want to, but I love you.”

December 5, 2019




Trump is the culmination of all that has gone wrong in our politics


E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST


There’s understandable delight over the name of a company run by one of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s Ukraine-connected buddies arrested last week for allegedly laundering money into President Trump’s political efforts. It’s called Fraud Guarantee. This will provide an excellent title for a book on the Trump era, deceitfulness being the one Trump trait we can rely on.
And if there’s one thing guaranteed in our election campaigns now, it’s the danger that they’ll be influenced by foreign donors.
In the 2010 Citizens United decision and other rulings, Supreme Court conservatives pooh-poohed the dangers of corruption and created many new openings through which dark money — including cash from Ukraine, Russia and anywhere else in the world — can infect our politics. Rebuilding protections against the now virtually unlimited opportunities for influence-buying must be a priority once Trump is out of power.
The indictment of Giuliani’s associates is well worth reading as a road map to how the system can be gamed. It illustrates, said veteran campaign reformer Fred Wertheimer, how Citizens United “created a clear path for unlimited amounts of foreign money to enter our political system.”
The arrests also make clear that Trump’s July 25 phone call seeking help from Ukraine’s president to smear Joe Biden was part of a larger structure of corruption that is the hallmark of the Trump presidency. Like many demagogues, Trump demonizes minorities and his political enemies to hide his devotion to the art of the shady deal.
We might never have known about the shenanigans of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, U.S. citizens born respectively in Ukraine and Belarus, absent a complaint to the Federal Election Commission from the intrepid watchdogs at the Campaign Legal Center in July 2018 and reporting by the Daily Beast.
Trevor Potter, the center’s president, said in an interview that his group noticed a May 17, 2018, contribution of $325,000 from a limited liability corporation, Global Energy Producers (GEP) to America First Action, Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC. GEP seemed to have no real business purpose, and Potter and his colleagues suspected it was a shell company, which is what it turned out to be. The indictment charges that Parnas, Fruman and two other defendants used GEP to make political donations funded by an unidentified Russian businessman.
“It’s a fluke they were caught,” said Potter, a Republican and former chairman of the FEC. “The dark money system makes it almost impossible to find this stuff.”
Potter argued that in Citizens United and related rulings, the Supreme Court made “a terrible mistake” in “minimizing the definition of corruption.” He added: “The court fundamentally misunderstood how politics works and the dangers of corruption from unlimited and secret campaign spending. The chickens are coming home to roost in this indictment.”
By bringing roosting chickens to public attention, big scandals build pressure for reform. One important effect of Watergate was passage of campaign finance laws that worked well for a generation. These laws needed updating even before the Supreme Court gutted protections against influence buying. The Trump Bazaar, populated by a variety of seedy characters, brings home the urgency of taking this task seriously.
The indictment, said Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), the lead sponsor of H.R. 1, the comprehensive reform bill approved this year by the House, “is a glimpse into the broad culture of corruption and ethical blindness that has infected our politics, particularly in the area of campaign finance.”
His use of the word “culture” is important. Legal limits on unsavory practices outlaw socially destructive actions but also signal what kinds of public behavior are morally unacceptable. Bad laws encourage bad habits.
“People cross these lines with impunity,” Sarbanes told me, “and if they can’t even see the lines, they start thinking they can get away with anything.”
Which brings it all back to a man whose words and actions suggest he really does believe he can get away with anything. It is a supreme irony that Trump triumphed by exploiting public disaffection with a political system so many Americans see as infested with sleaze and controlled by forces operating entirely for their own benefit.
Rather than being the cure for such maladies, he is their apotheosis, the culmination of all that has gone wrong in our politics. The task of the impeachment inquiry is to use his Ukrainian misadventure to bring home the breadth of the president’s venality and self-dealing. The goal should be not only to rid the country of a dangerous leader but also to show how desperately our system needs repair.