Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    House Republicans Will Vote Again on President Trump’s Legislative Agenda

    A group of fiscal hard-liners on the Budget Committee blocked the bill Friday morning. The group will try again to pass the president’s megabill out of committee Sunday night.The House Budget Committee will meet late Sunday night to try once again to advance President Trump’s domestic policy bill toward a floor vote after a handful of fiscally conservative Republicans blocked the measure on Friday over concerns about the ballooning national deficit.The remarkable revolt among hard-right lawmakers has threatened to upend Republicans’ goal of approving the legislation before the Memorial Day recess. G.O.P. leaders have been searching for a way to pacify the holdouts.Five Republican representatives — Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania — joined Democrats to block the legislation on Friday. The vote was 16 to 21 on a motion to advance the bill.“This bill falls profoundly short,” Mr. Roy said.Mr. Smucker, who changed his “yes” vote to a “no” at the last minute, said he did so for procedural reasons. Because he voted against the bill, he will be able to ask to call the legislation back up for consideration.But it was unclear what changes Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team could come up with to win enough votes.Without the support of Republican hard-liners, the bill cannot advance. Any changes to win their backing could alienate the more moderate Republicans whose votes will also be needed to pass the measure on the House floor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    On ‘S.N.L.’, Bad Bunny and Scarlett Johansson Have a Couples’ Feud

    This weekend’s broadcast, hosted by Scarlett Johansson and featuring the musical guest Bad Bunny, began with a sendup of President Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.There was only one way for the final episode of the milestone 50th season of “Saturday Night Live” to begin: with Lorne Michaels announcing that his chosen successor will be — nah, come on, it was another sketch with James Austin Johnson playing President Trump.This weekend’s broadcast, hosted by Scarlett Johansson and featuring the musical guest Bad Bunny, began with a sendup of President Trump’s recent visit to the Middle East.Sharing the stage with Emil Wakim (who was playing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia), Johnson said that he’d been enjoying their meals together, “sitting on the floor, dipping our fingers straight into various goops and spreads that I politely scrape under the rug and go eat at a mobile McDonald’s that you built for me.”He added that he was a “big fan of everything that Saudi Arabia has to offer, from the oil to the money to end of list.”Johnson vowed that he didn’t make this trip for his own benefit. “I want to make that clear,” he said. “I did this for the American people and, in many ways, myself. My personal enrichment. I did that too.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 50 Shares199 Views

    in Elections

    Free Press, Free People

    An interview with the publisher of The Times.Every day, this newsletter brings you the best of New York Times journalism — scoops, investigations, reports from inside war zones or natural disasters, interviews with powerful people and quirky characters, stories that help explain our messy, complicated, frustrating and occasionally delightful world. Sometimes we take for granted what makes that possible.The freedom to ask tough questions. To go where news is happening. To tell the truth even when it makes people mad.Last week, our publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, gave an important speech at the University of Notre Dame about how these freedoms of the press underpin our freedoms as people — how journalism helps hold up democracy. You can — and should! — read the whole thing here, but I also asked the big boss a few questions about it. We usually think of threats to journalists and state control of the media as the scourge of authoritarian societies. How can this be happening here, home of the vaunted First Amendment?There are two very different types of journalistic repression. The more dangerous and dramatic occurs in places like China and Russia, where journalists have their work overtly censored, or are even jailed or killed over it.But there is a subtler, more insidious, playbook for going after journalists in democracies. Selectively using investigatory or regulatory powers to punish journalists and news organizations, for example. Filing frivolous lawsuits against them. Targeting their owners’ unrelated business interests.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Elections

    Until 60 Years Ago, New Popes Were Crowned

    Pope Leo XIV presided over his inaugural Mass on Sunday. Years ago, it would have included a solemn moment when the pontiff was crowned with an elaborate gold and jewel-encrusted papal tiara.In the book “A Reporter at the Papal Court,” published in 1937, Thomas B. Morgan, then the head of The United Press bureau in Rome wrote that Pope Pius XI’s inauguration ceremony in 1922 had been “more dazzling and colorful” that the coronation of the king of England.One wow factor would have been the moment of the coronation of the pope. From the 12th century until Paul VI stopped using a papal crown in 1964, the installation Mass included a solemn moment when the pontiff was crowned with an elaborate gold and jewel-encrusted tiara.The pope would not wear the tiara during liturgical ceremonies “but only when entering and exiting certain solemn ceremonies,” said Rev. Stefano Sanchirico, co-author of a book on papal rituals.Paul VI stopped using the tiara and chose to wear a miter instead, as his successors have done. That papal tiara ended up in the United States, where it is now in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.In his homily during his inauguration Mass on Oct. 22, 1978, Pope John Paul II noted that popes had been crowned in the past, but said the focus should be elsewhere. “This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes,” he said.Archival footage offers a glimpse of the grandeur of the ceremony. A 1939 film that includes the coronation of Pope Pius XII shows crowds roaring in St. Peter’s Square, as he was carried on an elevated throne through the atrium of the basilica. The pope then moved to a balcony and was crowned.A film of the coronation of Pope John XXIII in 1958 shows him being crowned, with the narrator proclaiming him: “The vicar of Christ on earth.”Doing away with the crown was not the only way in which Paul VI looked to open the church to the modern world: He also moved the ceremony outside to the area in front of the basilica, where he was carried through the crowd on a raised throne by sediari, a lay brotherhood that still has a role in the Vatican — they were the pallbearers who carried Pope Francis’ coffin. More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Elections

    Surgeons Perform First Human Bladder Transplant

    Surgeons in Southern California have performed the first human bladder transplant, introducing a new, potentially life-changing procedure for people with debilitating bladder conditions.The operation was performed earlier this month by a pair of surgeons from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California on a 41-year-old man who had lost much of his bladder capacity from treatments for a rare form of bladder cancer.“I was a ticking time bomb,” the patient, Oscar Larrainzar, said on Thursday during a follow-up appointment with his doctors. “But now I have hope.”The doctors plan to perform bladder transplants in four more patients as part of a clinical trial to get a sense of outcomes like bladder capacity and graft complications before pursuing a larger trial to expand its use.Dr. Inderbir Gill, who performed the surgery along with Dr. Nima Nassiri, called it “the realization of a dream” for treating thousands of patients with crippling pelvic pain, inflammation and recurrent infections.“There is no question: A potential door has been opened for these people that did not exist earlier,” said Dr. Gill, the chairman of the urology department at U.S.C.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    What Desi Arnaz Could Teach Hollywood Today

    Seventy-five years ago, a fading redheaded movie star and her itinerant bandleader husband were searching desperately for a way to save their careers — and their marriage. She was starring in a network radio show in Hollywood and he was a musician on the road all the time, so they rarely saw each other. In their 10 years together, she’d already filed for divorce once, and was nearing her wits’ end.The movie star was Lucille Ball and the bandleader, of course, was Desi Arnaz. In 1950, a glimmer of hope appeared for the couple: CBS intended to transfer Ball’s radio show, “My Favorite Husband,” to the untested new medium of television. But there was a problem: Ball wanted to make the move only if Arnaz — who’d helped start the conga dance craze in nightclubs in the 1930s and fueled America’s demand for Latin music after World War II — could play that husband on TV. The network and prospective sponsors believed the public would never accept a thick-accented Latino as the spouse of an all-American girl. “I was always the guy that didn’t fit,” Arnaz would later tell Ed Sullivan.Arnaz, a Cuban immigrant and self-taught showman, had an idea: The couple would undertake an old-fashioned vaudeville tour of major cities around the country. He and Ball would demonstrate the real-life chemistry that he knew would click with Americans if they only had a chance to see the act.Racism was a fact of daily life even in Arnaz’s adopted hometown, Los Angeles, where some restaurants still refused service to Latinos. The term D.E.I. did not yet exist, but Arnaz’s gambit amounted to a bold push for diversity, equity and inclusion in the white-bread monoculture of a dawning mass medium that was sponsor-driven and cautious to a fault.Miracle of miracles, it worked. Critics and audiences from coast to coast raved at the couple’s onstage antics, as Lucy clowned with a battered cello while Desi sang and drummed his heart out. A.H. Weiler of The Times pronounced the pair “a couple who bid fair to become the busiest husband-and- wife team extant.” Soon enough, they were.Based on the success of Ball and Arnaz’s tour, CBS executives agreed to film a test episode. The network had trouble finding a sponsor until a leading ad man, Milton Biow (as it happens, the grandfather of the actor Matthew Broderick) persuaded his client Philip Morris cigarettes to take a chance on the new show. “I Love Lucy” was born, the rest is history, and it was Desi Arnaz who made much of that history possible.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Elections

    Trump Is Destroying a Core American Value. The World Will Notice.

    In the late 1980s, Joseph Nye, the Harvard political scientist who died this month, developed the concept of “soft power.” His central premise, that the United States enhances its global influence by promoting values like human rights and democracy, has guided U.S. foreign policy for decades across both Republican and Democratic administrations.Donald Trump has made clear that he fundamentally rejects this vision. As president, he has ordered a sweeping overhaul of the State Department that will cripple its capacity to promote American values abroad. At the center of this effort are drastic cuts to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor — the State Department’s core institution for advancing soft power, which I led under President Barack Obama. Unless Congress intervenes, the debasement of the bureau’s role will impair America’s ability to challenge authoritarianism, support democratic movements and provide independent analysis to inform U.S. foreign policy. The long-term result will be a United States that is weaker, less principled and increasingly sidelined as authoritarian powers like Russia and China offer their own transactional models of global engagement.The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor was created with bipartisan congressional support in 1977, a time when lawmakers sought greater influence over foreign policy in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and America’s support for authoritarian regimes in countries like Chile and South Korea. President Jimmy Carter’s religious convictions and deep commitment to human rights gave the fledgling bureau early momentum. Still, its purpose was always practical: to ensure U.S. foreign aid and trade decisions were informed by credible assessments of human rights conditions around the world. That’s why every year, the bureau prepares congressionally mandated human rights reports.In its early years, it struggled to defend its existence. Foreign governments resented being called out in its annual reports and attacked its legitimacy. Many State Department traditionalists viewed its focus on human rights as an unhelpful distraction from the realpolitik topics they were much more comfortable addressing. It also drew criticisms of hypocrisy, mostly from the left, for condemning the records of other countries in the face of unresolved human rights problems here in the United States. Others accurately pointed out that even as the State Department’s human rights reports documented serious abuses, the United States continued to provide substantial aid to governments like Ferdinand E. Marcos’s Philippines, Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire, Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt and numerous military regimes across Latin America.These tensions have not disappeared. But over nearly five decades, the bureau has evolved to confront them. Governments, companies, judges and nongovernmental organizations have all come to rely on its annual country reports. It plays the lead role in preventing the United States from funding foreign security forces that violate human rights. And its policy engagement has guided the U.S. approach to international conflicts, repressive regimes and civil wars.That progress is now at risk. The Trump administration’s proposed “reforms” will hamstring my former agency’s capacity to uphold its mission in three major ways.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Mexican Navy Sailboat Crashes Into Brooklyn Bridge

    There were 277 people on board, and three were critically injured, officials said.The masts of a Mexican Navy training sailboat toppled after striking the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday evening.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesA Mexican Navy training sailboat with nearly 300 people on board struck the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday night, the New York Police Department said.There were 277 people on board, a Fire Department official said. Among those injured, three were deemed to be in critical condition and another 17 were serious. Everyone on board the ship is believed to be accounted for, the official said. More