On June 9, 1993, the Montreal Canadiens -- of whom I, like my confederate Andrew Cohen, have been a fan since the age of zero, and who had won the National Hockey League championship only once since the their last dynasty years in the '70s -- were headed into game five of the Stanley Cup finals against the Los Angeles Kings, up three games to one. That's a comfortable lead, but the Kings were Wayne Gretzky's team; they'd taken the first game of the series 4-1 and pushed the Canadiens into overtime in each of the next three. With the possibility that the Habs could win it all that night, my pals and I felt compelled to head down to the Forum to see what the scalpers were asking. $100 for a standing-room ticket may not seem like much now -- and frankly, it didn't seem like much the next day -- but then and there, we doubted our luck that our team would manage a fourth win in a row and settled for a sports bar on rue Saint-Laurent.
The next morning, this was the off-lede story on the front page ofThe Montreal Gazette:
Unleashing seven years of pent-up frustration, thousands of Montreal hockey fans swarmed downtown last night smashing car windows, overturning cars and looting stores as part of the explosion of emotions which followed the Canadiens' 24th Stanley Cup victory.
They poured out of the Forum, were joined by thousands of other fans congregating downtown and took over Ste. Catherine St.
Despite a heavy police presence in the streets the delirious fans went on a rampage. They swept along the street turning over cars, smashing store windows and attacking remote trucks belonging to television stations.
... Montreal Urban Community police, stung by criticism of their slow reaction to outof-hand celebrations after the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup in 1986, said they had deployed about four times the number of officers and patrol vehicles in the area surrounding the Forum than they would normally send to a hockey game.
But this time they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers as the fans took over Ste. Catherine St. and brought traffic to a standstill.
All of which is largely how things are remembered today: years of pent-up frustration, thousands of violent fans rioting, overwhelmed police. ... But it's not true.
As the final minutes of the game had passed, and everyone at our bar started realizing that we'd really won, euphoria took over. I remember a guy in a Habs jersey bear-hugging me, weeping, just because I was there beside him in the middle of it all. Before long, we spilled out of the bar into a river of Montrealers flowing down toward Sainte-Catherine, and from there west to the Forum. I've never seen anything like it since. The slightest eye contact was all any two people seemed to need before embracing, slapping each other on the back, or patting each other on the face, wide-eyed, yelling victory -- maybe in French, maybe in English.
By the time we were half-way down Sainte-Catherine, though, the scene was filling out in odd ways. We started noticing packs of young guys huddled on the side streets, carrying empty duffle bags. Others hung back with walkie-talkies, one in a doorway over here, another in an alleyway across the street. None of them were moving. The crowed thickened. Police were out in full riot gear, but they were concentrated in tight groups, far away from one another. For three or four long blocks at a time, we didn't see them at all. Then, the sound of breaking glass. People started darting from the side streets against the pedestrian flow, hitting shop windows and bagging the goods. These weren't fans; they were crews. Most folks in the street were stunned, many started booing loudly. A few idiots idly picked up sunglasses or T-shirts from shattered storefronts.
In the last few blocks before the Forum, the looting got worse, along, now, with the random trashing of property -- bus doors, bank windows, street lamps. A car had been flipped over and torched. Some people were into the rampaging. But most clearly weren't. There were confrontations between rioters and non-rioters. A few fights broke out. Looking up at the Forum, I heard someone walking behind me say in an American accent, "This city sucks! I'm never coming back here again ...."
Flashing forward to Vancouver this week, the story there seems straigtforward. You can read the reporting, which is far more extensive than it was in Montreal 18 years ago, and you can watch the raw ugliness for yourself all over YouTube. But we still don't really understand what drove this riot -- and should be slow to reckon that the apparent irony of Canadians rioting, or the reality of people from a famously beautiful city turning vicious, tells us anything about Vancouver or Canucks fans as a whole.
With a penstroke, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from Trans-Pacific Partnership, imposed a federal hiring freeze, and reinstated the ‘Mexico City policy’ on defunding international abortion-related services.
President Trump marked his first full business day in office with three major executive orders, each one aimed at fulfilling campaign promises he made last year.
His most significant order immediately withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral free-trade agreement between the U.S. and eleven other Pacific Rim countries. The pact, aimed at counterbalancing China’s growing economic clout in east Asia, was among the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievements and a cornerstone of the pivot to Asia.
But the agreement also drew its share of domestic criticism on both sides of the campaign aisle. Both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who initially supported it, and her primary rival Bernie Sanders criticized the pact for not doing enough to support American workers. Trump was among its most vociferous critics, at one point calling it “a continuing rape of our country.”
Saturday’s unprecedented show of opposition punctured a core myth of the Trump presidency. Will it change his behavior? And can it be sustained?
George W. Bush campaigned as a uniter, not a divider, then presided for eight polarizing years, provoking protests like the one against the Iraq War on February 15, 2003, that sent hundreds of thousands of Americans into the streets of major cities. Those protests stopped neither the Iraq War nor the reelection of the president.
Months after Barack Obama was sworn in, on April 15, 2009, protesters associated with the Tea Party held rallies in 350 cities, attracting more than 300,000 Americans. They were angry about the financial crisis, the Bush administration’s response to it, and the progressive agenda of the polarizing new president and Congress. The following year, 84 Republican freshmen joined the House during the 2010 midterms. By 2012, the Tea Party had fueled victories for politicians including Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Scott Brown, and Nikki Haley. President Obama’s ability to advance a domestic agenda was all but finished, though he retained enough popularity to be reelected easily in the 2012 campaign.
Billy Barr moved to the Rocky Mountains four decades ago, got bored one winter, and decided to keep a notebook that has become the stuff of legend.
It was a year into his life alone in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains when Billy Barr began his recordings. It started as a curiosity, a task to busy his mind during the winter. By no means, Barr told me, having skied down from his cabin to use the nearest phone, did he set out to make a vital database for climate change scientists. “Hell no!” he said. “I didn’t know anything about climate change at the time.”
In 1973 Barr had dropped out of college and made his home an abandoned mining shack at the base of Gothic Mountain, a 12,600-foot stone buttress. The cold winds blew through the shack’s wood slat walls as if they didn’t exist; he shared the bare dirt floor with a skunk and pine marten, his only regular company for much of the year. Barr had moved from the East Coast to the Rocky Mountains precisely because of the solitude, but he couldn’t escape boredom. Especially that first winter. So he measured snow levels, animal tracks, and in spring the first jubilant calls of birds returning. He filled a notebook with these observations; then another notebook. This has continued now for 44 years.
The president has reinstated a contentious policy that blocks funding to international family-planning organizations unless they agree not to promote abortion.
On Monday, just days after hundreds of thousands of women marched on Washington, as well as in hundreds of cities around the nation and the world, to call for, among other issues, the protection of women’s reproductive rights, President Donald Trump signed offon the first anti-abortion policy of his term.
It was expected: Almost immediately upon entering office, every new administration since 1984 has repealed or reinstated, according to its party’s position on abortion rights, a rule that prohibits foreign organizations that receive U.S. family-planning funds “from providing counseling or referrals for abortion or advocating for access to abortion services in their country.”
This rule, known as the Mexico City policy, blocks U.S. family-planning assistance to these groups, even if their abortion-related activities—including information, referrals, or services—are conducted with non-U.S. funds. Opponents to the restriction have dubbed it the “Global Gag Rule” because it hinders communication between health-care providers and patients.
If the president and his aides will tell easily disproven falsehoods about crowd sizes and speeches, what else will they be willing to dissemble about?
One of the many things that is remarkable about the Trump administration is its devotion, even in its first days, to a particular variety of pointless falsehood.
Mendacity among politicians and the spokespeople hired to spin for them runs across eras and aisles, though it is true that some are more honest than others, and Donald Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate. But the Trump administration has displayed a commitment to needlessly lying that is confounding to even the most cynical observers of American politics.
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.
“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.
A history of the first African American White House—and of what came next
In the waning days of President Barack Obama’s administration, he and his wife, Michelle, hosted a farewell party, the full import of which no one could then grasp. It was late October, Friday the 21st, and the president had spent many of the previous weeks, as he would spend the two subsequent weeks, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Things were looking up. Polls in the crucial states of Virginia and Pennsylvania showed Clinton with solid advantages. The formidable GOP strongholds of Georgia and Texas were said to be under threat. The moment seemed to buoy Obama. He had been light on his feet in these last few weeks, cracking jokes at the expense of Republican opponents and laughing off hecklers. At a rally in Orlando on October 28, he greeted a student who would be introducing him by dancing toward her and then noting that the song playing over the loudspeakers—the Gap Band’s “Outstanding”—was older than she was.
M. Night Shyamalan’s new film ends on a typically surprising note—and there’s a lot to unpack about its wider implications.
This article spoils the entire plot, and twist ending, of Split.
M. Night Shyamalan is a writer and director who is legendarily fond of the surprise twist ending. It was a stunt that made his career with his third film, The Sixth Sense, in 1999, turning a small-scale ghost story into a word-of-mouth smash hit that dominated the box office for an entire summer. He’s deployed it over and over throughout his career, to arguably diminishing returns, before dropping it entirely. But recently, as he’s dipped back into the horror genre that put his name on the map, he’s brought back his favorite gimmick, and his new film Split has a final reveal that is too bonkers not to discuss—one that redefines the overall thrust of the film, and that ends up referring back to his larger oeuvre in an unconventional way.
The controversial trade deal put together by President Obama and supported by many Republicans falls under the weight of the new president’s populism.
Updated January 23 at 3:40 p.m.
On Monday, President Trump followed through on his campaign promise to immediately pull the United States out of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The mammoth trade deal between the United States and 11 Pacific countries was the centerpiece of former President Obama’s trade policy. With the TPP, Obama attempted to create an economic pivot toward Asia while also using the ties forged by the pact as a counterweight to China’s rising economic growth and influence in Asia.
Though it enjoyed some popularity, particularly among the Republican party leadership, the TPP—along with NAFTA—was frequently derided by President Trump on the campaign trail. The deal, which had yet to be approved by Congress and would have slashed tariffs among the 12 nations, brought with it fears that it also would harm American workers and lead to the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs. “Not only will the TPP undermine our economy,” Trump said in June, “but it will undermine our independence.”