Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    In Mexico, a Grisly Discovery of Piles of Shoes, Ovens and Human Remains

    The authorities are investigating the discovery of cremation ovens, human remains, piles of shoes and other personal effects at an abandoned ranch outside Guadalajara.A group of volunteers searching for their missing relatives first received a tip last week about a mass grave hidden in western Mexico.When they arrived at an abandoned ranch outside La Estanzuela, a small rural village outside Guadalajara, they discovered three underground cremation ovens, burned human remains, hundreds of bone shards and discarded personal items, along with figurines of Santa Muerte — the Holy Death.The Mexican authorities, who were notified of the grisly discovery, said in several statements that they later found 96 shell casings of various calibers and metal gripping rings at the ranch. By last Friday, the discovery was dominating local newspapers and TV reports, and the search group was referring to the site as an “extermination camp.”It is unclear how many people died on the site, and none of remains have been identified. The authorities have yet to say who operated the camp, what crimes were committed there and for how long. But this week, the Attorney General’s Office took over the investigation at the request of President Claudia Sheinbaum.Photos taken by the authorities and by the volunteer group, Searching Warriors of Jalisco, at the abandoned ranch showed more than 200 shoes piled together and heaps of other personal items: a blue summer dress, a small pink backpack, notebooks, pieces of underwear. The more than 700 personal items were a chilling hint about the number of people who may have died there.In a country seemingly inured to episodes of brutal violence from drug cartels, where clandestine graves emerge every month, the images shocked Mexicans and prompted outraged human rights groups to demand that the government put an end to the violence that has ravaged the nation for years.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

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Justice Department Moves to Dismiss Challenge to Iowa Immigration Law

    The law remains blocked for now. It was not immediately clear whether the dismissal request signaled a broader shift on state-level immigration enforcement.The Justice Department moved on Friday to dismiss its Biden-era challenge of an Iowa law that made it a state crime for some undocumented immigrants to enter the state, a victory for Iowa Republicans as the Trump administration pursues an aggressive campaign against illegal immigration.The short filing submitted by Justice Department lawyers in Federal District Court in Des Moines did not provide any reasoning for seeking the dismissal, and it did not immediately remove judicial blocks on Iowa enforcing its law. A similar filing on Friday sought the dismissal of a Justice Department challenge to an Oklahoma immigration law that had also been blocked.Justice Department officials did not respond on Friday evening to questions about whether the Iowa filing signaled a broader policy shift on state-level immigration enforcement, which it had opposed during Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidency.Attorney General Brenna Bird of Iowa, whose office has defended her state’s law in court, celebrated the dismissal motion and linked it to President Trump’s approach to immigration.“When the Biden administration failed to do its job and secure our borders, Iowa stepped up. And we never backed down — even when Biden sued us for it,” Ms. Bird, a Republican, said in a statement. “Today, President Trump, again, proved that he has Iowa’s back and showcased his commitment to Making America Safe Again by dropping Biden’s ridiculous lawsuit.”Yaakov M. Roth, an acting assistant attorney general, was one of the Justice Department lawyers who asked for the dismissal of the Iowa case. No similar dismissal motion appeared on Friday evening on the public docket for a challenge to a similar Texas law that Mr. Biden’s Justice Department also sued to block.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 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    The Democratic Divide: Would a Shutdown Have Helped or Hurt Trump?

    When Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, announced that he would vote with Republicans to clear the way for passage of a stopgap spending bill, he argued that a government shutdown would further empower President Trump and Elon Musk to defund government programs and shrink federal agencies.“Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired,” Mr. Schumer said on Thursday.But many Democrats, who were stunned and enraged by Mr. Schumer’s stance, argued that it was in fact the spending extension that would clear the way for Mr. Trump’s executive orders and Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to continue to reshape the government, running roughshod over Congress in the process.Behind the political divide over how best to push back against Mr. Trump was a practical question: Does the White House have more power or less when the government shuts down?It’s a complicated subject. Here’s what to know:What happens in a government shutdown?When the government shuts down, agencies continue essential work, but federal employees and contractors are not paid. Many employees are furloughed until Congress acts to extend new funding.Federal agencies typically make contingency plans that lay out who should keep working and what programs need to operate during a shutdown. But spending experts said the decisions about what is deemed “necessary” or “essential” ultimately rest with the White House Office of Management and Budget, currently run by Russell T. Vought.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 Shares199 Views

    in Elections

    Marco Rubio Essentially Expels South Africa’s U.S. Ambassador

    As he flew back from the Group of 7 allies meeting in Canada on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made an announcement that essentially expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool. Mr. Rubio wrote on social media that the ambassador was a “race-baiting politician who hates America” and President Trump. He added, “We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON GRATA.” That designation requires South Africa to end his role as ambassador. Mr. Rubio made his comments above a repost of an article from Breitbart, a right-leaning news site, about remarks Mr. Rasool made on Friday at an institute in Johannesburg. The article quoted Mr. Rasool saying Mr. Trump was leading a “supremacist” movement against “the incumbency, those who are in power,” in South Africa.The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says a host country “may at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare “any member” of a diplomatic mission to be persona non grata, which is Latin for an unwelcome individual. The convention states that in case of such designation, “the sending state shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission.” Mr. Rubio said on social media last month that he would not attend the meeting of top diplomats from the Group of 20 nations in South Africa, criticizing the South African hosts for having a focus of the meeting be on “solidarity, equality and sustainability.” Other countries did not follow Mr. Rubio’s boycott. China sent its top foreign policy official, Wang Yi, who held meetings with counterparts from other countries while Mr. Rubio was absent.Mr. Trump has signed an executive order last month prioritizing the resettlement in the United States of white South African farmers, whom he referred to as “Afrikaner refugees,” whose land had been taken by the government, even though that is not a widespread practice in South Africa. He also ordered the federal government to cut off all aid to South Africa. More

  • 175 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Appeals Court Allows Trump Administration’s DEI Crackdown to Proceed, but Judges Debate DEI Merits

    A federal appeals court on Friday allowed the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government to go forward by pausing a lower-court ruling in Maryland that had blocked enforcement of a series of President Trump’s executive orders.However, the concurring opinions provided by the three judges revealed a sharp political line dividing the jurists on whether diversity was a nonpartisan value of American life or a political philosophy open to scrutiny.Mr. Trump has made aggressive moves to purge diversity initiatives from the government, and administration officials have threatened federal employees with “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who defy the orders. Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District of Maryland had written in the lower court ruling last month that the orders sought to punish people for constitutionally protected speech.On Friday, the three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., found that the Trump administration had “satisfied the factors for a stay” of that order, writing that the orders “are of distinctly limited scope” and “do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion.”Chief Judge Albert Diaz, who was appointed to the Fourth Circuit by President Barack Obama in 2010, wrote that ruling in the Trump administration’s favor was warranted but pushed back against the attacks on diversity initiatives, saying that “people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium.”“When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people,” wrote Judge Diaz, who became the first Hispanic jurist to serve as chief judge of the court in 2023. “When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued.”He continued, “What could be more American than that?”Judge Pamela Harris, writing in her own concurring opinion, said that she shared Judge Diaz’s sentiment.“My vote should not be understood as agreement with the orders’ attack on efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion,” wrote Judge Harris, who was also appointed to the court by Mr. Obama.But Judge Allison Jones Rushing, who was appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term, used her own concurring opinion to criticize Judge Diaz’s declaration of support for diversity, equity and inclusion.“Any individual judge’s view on whether certain executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration,” Judge Rushing wrote.She continued, “A judge’s opinion that D.E.I. programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.” More

  • 75 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Confirm or Deny: Graydon Carter Edition

    A king of the glossy-magazine era sits for a lightning-round interview.Maureen Dowd: Annie Leibovitz took your passport photo.Graydon Carter: She took my passport photo.You were told to sod off by James Bond.Confirm! One year I invited all the men who played James Bond to the Oscar party. For one reason or another, all but one were either working or unavailable. We got George Lazenby, who had appeared in the pre-Sean Connery era in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” I spotted him at the bar by himself. I went over and introduced myself. He just looked straight ahead and then turned and in the sort of fragrant language not generally permitted in a high class newspaper, told me to buzz off.When you were at Time — and single — you wrote fun tidbits for the “People” page, and you had a romantic encounter with the young woman who wrote Newsweek’s version of the people page, called “Newsmakers.”No comment.The two funniest non-comedians you’ve ever met are George Clooney and Anderson Cooper.In both cases, they were so funny that I had to tell them to stop because I thought my trachea would break.When a New York Times push alert announced the news of your departure from Vanity Fair, multiple friends later told you that seeing your name pop up on their phone, they assumed it was because you died.Yes, and for some of them, it put a spring in their step.Anna Wintour should retire.Absolutely not. I think she can go on for decades.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

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Elections

    Graydon Carter Looks Back on a Glossy Career of Parties and Feuds

    After our interview, Graydon Carter emailed me.“Oh God, did I do okay yesterday? Too boring? Too indiscreet? Drank too much? Didn’t drink enough?”This was something I had failed to notice about Mr. Carter during his plummy, powerful quarter-century astride a glittering Vanity Fair. This one-time social arbiter, who ran a wildly successful magazine in the peak era for glossies, has social anxiety.How could the man who caused so much social anxiety, when he mercilessly decided who was in and who was out for the most exclusive parties on the planet, including his white-hot Oscar parties, have social anxiety?“I’m not cool — I’m the squarest person you’ve ever met,” he says, unconvincingly.We both started at Time magazine in the early ’80s, a louche era of bars in offices, clouds of cigarette smoke, cascading illicit affairs, sumptuous dining carts of roast beef rolling down the halls and expense accounts so lavish that a top editor would think nothing of sending someone from Paris to London to fetch a necktie he had left in a hotel room.I knew Mr. Carter only slightly back then, but he sure looked confident and debonair to me. Unlike a lot of the men at Time, he wasn’t condescending to the few women writers there. My impression, when I met him, was of a Canadian who seemed to want to dress and talk like a Brit, with dandy aspirations and an upper-crust pronunciation of rather as rah-ther.“It was a British suit,” he affirmed, laughing. “Well, you know, nobody’s going to buy a Canadian suit.”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 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    U.S. Consumer Sentiment Drops as Inflation Anxiety Soars

    Policy uncertainty and tariff whiplash are making consumers less confident about the economic outlook and more worried about inflation, new data from the University of Michigan showed on Friday, the latest evidence that Americans are bracing for pain in President Trump’s second term.A new survey released on Friday showed consumer sentiment plummeting 11 percent in March as Americans of all ages, income groups and political affiliations turned even more downbeat about the trajectory for the economy. Consumer confidence has fallen for the third consecutive month, not only about personal finances, but also the job market and stock markets. Since December, sentiment has tumbled 22 percent.“Many consumers cited the high level of uncertainty around policy and other economic factors; frequent gyrations in economic policies make it very difficult for consumers to plan for the future, regardless of one’s policy preferences,” said Joanne Hsu, director of the Surveys of Consumers at the University of Michigan.Consumers also revised up their expectations for inflation, both for the year ahead and over a five-year horizon. Over the next 12 months, consumers expect inflation to rise to 4.9 percent, up from a forecast for 4.3 percent last month. Over the longer run, expectations rose to 3.9 percent in what was the largest monthly jump since 1993. According to the latest Consumer Price Index report, inflation stands at 2.8 percent.“This is an horrific report,” said Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Elevated economic policy uncertainty and the sharp drop in stock prices have greatly undermined consumers’ confidence.”The preliminary data comes as President Trump and his top economic advisers have acknowledged that the president’s plans to reshape global trade through aggressive tariffs, to right size government spending and to alter the American immigration system, among other sweeping changes could hurt the economy or even push it into a recession.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