Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 50 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Kendrick Lamar’s Never-Ending Battles

    Subscribe to Popcast!Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicLast week, Kendrick Lamar released his sixth album, “GNX,” with no advance notice, unless you count the heavy anticipation that has been hovering around him since the apex of his battle with Drake earlier this year. A squabble over hip-hop ethics became a cultural touchstone, leaving Lamar with a No. 1 hit and Drake with spiritual and professional bruises.“GNX” extends the tension but doesn’t necessarily deepen it. Mostly, Lamar wants to get back to business as usual: making concept songs and albums that are musically complex and lyrically dense. The beef elevated him even higher into the stratosphere, but he doesn’t want it to define him or his career.On this week’s Popcast, a conversation about Lamar’s long wrestle with saviorhood, how his new album showcases both his loosest and stiffest tendencies, and the ways in which Drake is still grappling with the fallout of their battle.Guest:Joe Coscarelli, The New York Times’s pop music reporterConnect With Popcast. Become a part of the Popcast community: Join the show’s Facebook group and Discord channel. We want to hear from you! Tune in, and tell us what you think at popcast@nytimes.com. Follow our host, Jon Caramanica, on Twitter: @joncaramanica.Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    For Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Millions Line Sidewalks and Tune In

    There will be some differences this year because, after three decades, a new company has taken over production of the annual event.As the 98th iteration of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade makes its way down Central Park West and to the heart of Herald Square, there will be all the old familiars: Snoopy overhead, Tom Turkey kicking things off and, of course, the Taylor Swift of Thanksgiving, Santa Claus, bringing up the rear.But there will be some differences this year because, after three decades, a new company has taken over production of the annual event.Changes introduced by the new company, Silent House, will include more cameras trained on the spectators lining the parade route, according to a spokeswoman.There will also be cameras from the parade itself, circulating among the 700 clowns, 11 marching bands and the thousands of volunteer balloon handlers, who will keep icons like the new Minnie Mouse balloon from flying away.The spokeswoman for Silent House — which produced the halftime performance of this year’s Super Bowl — said its aim was to make the expected 30 million people watching on screens feel as if they’re standing and cheering alongside the 3.5 million or so people watching in person.Just before start time on Thursday morning, a group of star-shaped sugar cookies and human jingle bells stepped off a coach bus on Columbus Avenue and 77th Street, headed into position. Groups of people were gathered around the knees of a new Spider-Man balloon, and cheers were going up among the balloon handlers as they made ready to hit the parade route.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 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Linda McMahon Was Questioned About WWE in Previous Connecticut Education Role

    Linda McMahon, whose résumé mainly rests on running World Wrestling Entertainment, has faced questions for years over whether she is suitable for important education posts.Appointees to the State Board of Education usually sail through the confirmation process in Connecticut’s House of Representatives, but a 2009 choice, Linda E. McMahon, drew intense pushback.Andrew Fleischmann, who then chaired the House Education Committee, remembers being offended by her selection and leading the opposition.“She had no involvement whatsoever in education,” Mr. Fleischmann, a Democrat, said in a recent interview. “She’s made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pushing violence and sexualization of young women. She was a real force for doing ill to kids in our country.”Ms. McMahon’s company, World Wrestling Entertainment, was criticized for promoting violence, steroid use and sexualized content. In the early 2000s, Ms. McMahon would go so far as to engage in the W.W.E.’s theatrics herself. She kicked her husband, Vince McMahon, the company’s co-founder, in the groin in one routine. In another, she appeared to slap her daughter, Stephanie, and knock her to the floor.After a contentious floor debate, the House voted to approve Ms. McMahon by a vote of 96-45, an unusual split for a minor appointment in Connecticut.Ms. McMahon may soon face another confirmation, this time as President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education.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 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    What to Know About Australia’s Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

    Critics say big questions remain not only about how the new law will be enforced, but also about whether the ban will really protect young people.Australia has passed a law to prevent children under 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms.The bill, which the government calls a “world leading” move to protect young people online, was approved in the Senate on Thursday with support from both of the country’s major parties. The lower house of Parliament had passed it earlier in the week.“This is about protecting young people — not punishing or isolating them,” said Michelle Rowland, Australia’s communications minister. She cited exposure to content about drug abuse, eating disorders and violence as some of the harms children can encounter online.The legislation has broad support among Australians, and some parental groups have been vocal advocates. But it has faced backlash from an unlikely alliance of tech giants, human rights groups and social media experts. Critics say there are major unanswered questions about how the law will be enforced, how users’ privacy will be protected and, fundamentally, whether the ban will actually protect children.What’s in the law?The law requires social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to verify the age of users and prohibit those under 16 from opening accounts. 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

    Australia Bans Social Media for Everyone Under 16

    The law sets a minimum age for users of platforms like TikTok, Instagram and X. How the restriction will be enforced online remains an open question.Australia has imposed a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16, one of the world’s most comprehensive measures aimed at safeguarding young people from potential hazards online. But many details were still unclear, such as how it will be enforced and what platforms will be covered.After sailing through Parliament’s lower house on Wednesday, the bill passed the Senate on Thursday with bipartisan support. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said that it puts Australia at the vanguard of efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of children from detrimental effects of social media, such as online hate or bullying.The law, he has said, puts the onus on social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent anyone under 16 from having an account. Corporations could be fined up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $32 million) for “systemic” failures to implement age requirements.Neither underage users nor their parents will face punishment for violations. And whether children find ways to get past the restrictions is beside the point, Mr. Albanese said.“We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act,” he said in a statement this month.As with many countries’ regulations on alcohol or tobacco, the law will create a new category of “age-restricted social media platforms” accessible only to those 16 and older. How that digital carding will happen, though, is a tricky question.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

  • 63 Shares149 Views

    in Elections

    Books About Everyone, for Everyone

    This is part of an Opinion series on The New York Times Communities Fund, which assists nonprofits that provide direct support to people and communities facing hardship. Donate to the fund here. .g-goldbergseriesinfo a { text-decoration: underline; color: inherit; text-decoration-thickness: 1px; text-underline-offset: 2px; } .g-goldbergseriesinfo{ position: relative; display: flex; overflow: hidden; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 1.125rem […] More

  • 163 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    Appeals Court Again Blocks U.S. From Cutting Texas Border Wire Along Rio Grande

    The injunction is the second time that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has sided with Texas in a yearlong dispute over barbed wire around the city of Eagle Pass.For the second time, a federal appeals court has limited the Biden administration’s authority to cut barbed wire that Texas authorities have erected along the country’s southern border to deter migrants from crossing into the United States.But the ruling, issued Wednesday, required something of Texas authorities as well. The court order would protect the state’s concertina wire so as long as federal agents had “necessary access” to both sides of it — including in Shelby Park, a local park in the border city of Eagle Pass that the state seized and kicked federal authorities out of this year.The ruling is the latest development in an ongoing clash between state and federal authorities for control over border enforcement, as Texas has repeatedly tried to effectively set its own immigration policy. Since 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott has been deploying state law enforcement and National Guard members along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of an initiative called Operation Lone Star. Texas’ efforts to arrest migrants under a new state law and to place floating barriers along the Rio Grande have also led to court battles.The legal dispute over barbed wire began in October 2023 when Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, sued the Biden administration, claiming that U.S. Border Patrol agents were illegally destroying the state’s concertina wire fencing. The state, Mr. Paxton said, had the right to curb what he called an “alien surge.”A district court judge declined to give Texas the injunction it requested, finding that the federal government was likely to win the ongoing case because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that can often shield state and federal governments from lawsuits. In December 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a temporary order limiting the Biden administration’s ability to remove the wire only in cases of medical emergencies. That ruling was vacated by the Supreme Court in January, sending the case back to the lower courts.Wednesday’s order, from the Fifth Circuit, rejected claims by the Biden administration that sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution meant that Texas couldn’t challenge federal actions along the border. Texas, the appeals court found, was seeking “not to ‘regulate’ Border Patrol, but only to safeguard its own property.”The Fifth Circuit has been hailed by some Trump-aligned Republicans as a model for the future of conservative jurisprudence. Three of its judges are often discussed as possible Supreme Court nominees during President-elect Donald J. Trump’s second term. One of those three, Stuart Kyle Duncan, wrote Wednesday’s ruling.In a post on X, Mr. Paxton called Wednesday’s ruling a “huge win,” and said that his office had “fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More