Aurelia Butler

Research suggests that you’ll spend less than you otherwise would by setting a strict budget — even if you go over the budget.Black Friday and Cyber Monday have come and gone. So you may think that setting limits on holiday spending is a lost cause, right?Not so, said Jamie L. Clark, a certified financial planner in Seattle. The December holidays are still weeks away. “It’s never too late to make a plan.”Chuck Howard, an associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, said research suggests you’ll spend less by setting a holiday budget that’s “optimistically low.”That’s because even when compliance with budgets is weak, setting stricter, even somewhat unrealistic budgets tends to lead to lower spending, according to a study he helped write on the influence of budgeting on personal spending.Dr. Howard cited this example. Say you usually spend $500 a month dining out. You may think a realistic budget is $400 a month. But if you really want to cut back, you should set a budget of, say, $250. That way, if you spend $350, you’ve still spent much less than you used to.A tight holiday-spending limit serves as a reference point, he said, and even if you surpass it, you’ll probably spend less than if you had set a higher limit or hadn’t set a budget in the first place.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

The Guardian Media Group said it had struck a deal to sell The Observer to Tortoise Media, shortly after a 48-hour strike by journalists had ended.The Observer, a British Sunday newspaper that has been running for more than two centuries, will be sold to the digital media start-up Tortoise Media, the publication’s owner, the Guardian Media Group, said Friday, despite staff protests.The boards of the Guardian Media Group, which also publishes The Guardian, and the Scott Trust, the owner of the Guardian Media Group, have agreed “in principle” to the deal, which is expected to be signed in the next few days. The announcement came shortly after journalists at the two news outlets waged a 48-hour strike, calling the deal “rushed” and a risk to the journalism of both newspapers.The Guardian’s parent company, which bought The Observer in 1993, did not disclose the sale price. But it said the Scott Trust, a 1.3 billion-pound ($1.7 billion) fund, would invest in Tortoise Media and become one of its largest shareholders. The trust will also have representatives on the company and editorial boards of Tortoise Media, which said it had raised £25 million to invest in The Observer.“We knew we needed the right combination of resources and commitment to build a new platform for The Observer,” Ole Jacob Sunde, the chair of the Scott Trust, said in a statement. “It required an ally to be sufficiently funded, long-term in nature, and respect editorial independence and liberal values. I believe we have found this in Tortoise Media.”When the proposed sale came to light in September, it was a surprise to the papers’ journalists, who raised concerns about the ability of Tortoise Media, a six-year-old company that has not recorded a profit, to preserve the future of The Observer.Amid pressure from the staff to reconsider the deal, the Scott Trust pushed to have some say in the editorial direction of The Observer after the sale. Journalists at both newspapers walked off the job on Wednesday and Thursday, hoping to delay the deal. It was the first strike in the newsroom in more than 50 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

We wish you a merry Robyn Weintraub Day.Jump to: Tricky CluesFRIDAY PUZZLE — I don’t need to tell you how fond I am of Robyn Weintraub’s puzzles. I’ve said it before, and besides, you’re probably fond of them, too.Ms. Weintraub has a knack for making crosswords with sparkling long entries, no junky fill and some of the most clever clues I’ve had the honor of solving.And we have reason to congratulate her: While Ms. Weintraub makes puzzles for multiple venues, this is her 50th crossword in The New York Times.Tricky Clues10A. The word rash can describe acting without thinking about the consequences, but in today’s puzzle, it’s a skin irritation. If you [Have a rash reaction], you ITCH.16A. I first entered the word cami for [Teddy alternative], but the substitute we’re looking for is the nickname THEO.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

The statement by Han Dong-hoon makes it more likely that President Yoon Suk Yeol will be impeached in a parliamentary vote on Saturday.In a surprise about-face, the leader of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s governing party said on Friday that he supported the impeachment of the president, calling him unfit to lead South Korea after his short-lived martial law decree catapulted the country’s democracy into turmoil.“I think that President Yoon Suk Yeol should be suspended from office as soon as possible,” said Han Dong-hoon, the leader of the People Power Party, or P.P.P., during an emergency party leadership meeting.It was not clear how many members of the party shared Mr. Han’s view. But his comments increased the likelihood that the impeachment bill against Mr. Yoon would gain enough support to pass through the National Assembly. A vote is scheduled for Saturday evening. The bill needs two-thirds of the 300-member Assembly to pass. With all 192 opposition lawmakers supporting the bill, they would need at least eight votes from the 108 legislators in Mr. Yoon’s governing camp to impeach the president.How the Impeachment of South Korea’s President Could UnfoldA detailed look at each stage of the impeachment process, and what is to come for President Yoon.The opposition party proposed impeaching Mr. Yoon this week, arguing that he had committed “insurgency” and other anti-constitutional crimes when he declared martial law on Tuesday night. He banned all political activities and sent troops to take over the National Assembly. Legislation on martial law banned such acts, the opposition said in its impeachment bill formally submitted on Thursday.If impeached, Mr. Yoon would be suspended from office until the Constitutional Court decides whether to reinstate or remove him.Mr. Yoon’s martial law lasted only six hours, until early Wednesday. He was forced to lift it following the Assembly’s vote to reject the military rule. But the short-lived episode, which the opposition likened to a failed “palace coup” by an extremely unpopular leader, triggered outrage across South Korea. Even if briefly, it also exposed the fragility of the democracy South Koreans have been proud of.On Thursday, Mr. Han said he opposed impeaching Mr. Yoon for fear of creating more national confusion. But on Friday he said, “There is fear that if President Yoon stays in office, he may repeat extreme actions like martial law.”“If that happens, South Korea and its people will fall into a bigger crisis,” he said.Some opposition lawmakers have warned that Mr. Yoon might attempt to impose martial again out of desperation. More

“Purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success,” the former president said in the speech in Chicago.In his first speech since the presidential election in November, Barack Obama urged Americans who want democracy to survive to look for ways to compromise, engage with the other side, turn away from identity politics and build relationships with unlikely potential allies.“Pluralism is not about holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya,’” Mr. Obama said in Chicago on Thursday. “It is not about abandoning your convictions and folding when things get tough. It is about recognizing that, in a democracy, power comes from forging alliances and building coalitions, and making room in those coalitions not only for the woke, but the waking.”He added: “Purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success.”Billed as an address on “the power of pluralism,” the speech — a road map of sorts for political survival for liberals in a second term for Donald J. Trump — was delivered before hundreds of people as part of an annual Democracy Forum put on by the Obama Foundation, a private nonprofit entity that is led by Mr. Obama.Mr. Obama opened the speech with an acknowledgment that when he told friends of the focus of this year’s forum, the topic drew groans and eye rolls.“We’ve just been through a fierce, hard-fought election, and it’s fair to say that it did not turn out as they had hoped,” said Mr. Obama, who had, along with his wife, Michelle, campaigned intensely for Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the final weeks.For Mr. Obama’s friends, he said, talk of bridging differences in a bitterly divided country seemed like an academic exercise.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

President-elect Donald J. Trump has named one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent conservative investors, donors and media personalities to help oversee American tech policy.David Sacks, a venture capitalist and an early executive at PayPal who launched a hit podcast, will be the “White House A.I. and Crypto Czar,” the president-elect announced in a social media post on Thursday. Mr. Sacks is a close friend of Elon Musk, and Mr. Sacks has been among the people over the last year or so encouraging Mr. Musk to delve deeper into Republican politics.The position will be new, and further cements the expectation that the Trump White House intends to take a lighter hand with the regulation of technology and in particular cryptocurrencies, which have surged in value since Mr. Trump won the election and in which Mr. Trump personally has a business interest. Mr. Sacks, who leads a venture capital firm called Craft Ventures, has in general called for a more permissive policy on both cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence.Mr. Sacks won a battle within the Trump transition effort. Some people were pitching Mr. Trump’s team on separate positions where different people would oversee artificial intelligence and crypto, according to a person close to the process. But Mr. Sacks was chosen to oversee them all together in a joint appointment.“David will guide policy for the Administration in Artificial Intelligence and Cryptocurrency, two areas critical to the future of American competitiveness,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday evening. “David will focus on making America the clear global leader in both areas.”It is not clear if his role will be full time; Mr. Sacks has previously told friends that he did not want a formal role because it would require him to leave his position overseeing his venture capital fund, The New York Times has previously reported. Mr. Sacks announced a new start-up funding round led by his firm just this week.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

Benoist de Sinety, former vicar general of Paris, was on his scooter that April evening in 2019, driving across the Pont Neuf toward the Left Bank when he spotted flames in his rearview mirror billowing from under the eaves of Notre-Dame. He cursed, made a U-turn and sped toward the cathedral. Mary Queen of Scots […] More

The House on Thursday night blocked the release of a damaging Ethics Committee report about former Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, as Republicans voted to bury it, an expected move that makes it less likely the materials will ever be made public.Republicans closed ranks to turn back two nearly identical Democratic-written resolutions that would have forced the release of the report on the ethics panel’s yearslong investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use by the former congressman.They did so by moving to refer both measures back to the committee, which has so far refused to make public its conclusions.The vote on the first resolution was 206 to 198, almost entirely along party lines, with nearly all Republicans voting to block the report’s release and Democrats voting to make it public. The vote on the second measure, which included language about preserving the records but also demanded their release, was 204 to 198, also almost all along party lines.Just one Republican, Representative Tom McClintock of California, sided with the Democrats.Democrats have continued to press for the release of the ethics report, even though Mr. Gaetz has resigned from Congress and removed himself as President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for attorney general, at least in part because the ethics report was complicating his confirmation process.Speaker Mike Johnson has said that because Mr. Gaetz is no longer a sitting member of Congress, the release of the report would set a bad precedent in the House and has urged the Republican-led committee not to release its findings.Democrats have argued that burying the report is concealing credible allegations of sexual misconduct.“No workplace would allow that information to be swept under the rug simply because someone resigned from office,” Representative Sean Casten, the Illinois Democrat who has spearheaded the move to release the report, told ABC News.Mr. Gaetz has denied all of the allegations.Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House majority leader, called the question of releasing the report “moot” since Mr. Gaetz has resigned.Tom Brenner for The New York Times“The member being referenced in the resolution has actually resigned from the House of Representatives; therefore, the question is moot,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House majority leader, said on the floor Thursday night, moving to refer the resolution back to the committee.Since 2021, the House Ethics Committee has been investigating allegations about Mr. Gaetz. That year, it opened an inquiry into sexual misconduct allegations as well as claims that Mr. Gaetz misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, accepted impermissible gifts under House rules, and shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, among other transgressions.The secretive, bipartisan committee met earlier on Thursday for close to three hours to discuss the report, but all of its members were mum as they left the meeting.After the session, the committee issued a terse statement saying that it “met today to discuss the matter of Representative Matt Gaetz. The committee is continuing to discuss the matter. There will be no further statements other than in accordance with committee and House rules.” More