Elections

The legislative audit found several ways that the heavily scrutinized purchase potentially violated state law. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders criticized the findings.Legislative auditors in Arkansas found that the purchase last year of a $19,000 lectern by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s office potentially violated state laws, according to a report released on Monday.But the findings may be moot after the state attorney general, Tim Griffin, said last week that state purchasing laws do not apply to the governor or other executive branch officials.Ms. Sanders, a Republican, faced sharp scrutiny for the purchase, even from members of her own party. But on Monday, she appeared eager to fling away those attacks, posting a video montage seemingly mocking the lectern controversy on social media, complete with hype music and dramatic edits.Her office described the report as “deeply flawed” and said that “no laws were broken.”The potential violations found by the audit include shredding a document that should have been preserved and mishandling the purchase process. The legislative auditors said that their report would be forwarded to the Sixth Judicial District prosecuting attorney and to Mr. Griffin’s office.State lawmakers approved the audit last year after it was revealed that the governor’s office had purchased the lectern and an accompanying traveling case in June, using a state-issued credit card to pay $19,029.25 to Beckett Events L.L.C., an event management company with ties to Ms. Sanders.Matthew Campbell, a lawyer and blogger who had filed a broad public records request, was the first to obtain the information.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

After a video was widely shared online of two men pushing over a rock formation at Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, the authorities are asking for the public’s help to identify them.The National Park Service is seeking help from the public to find two men who were captured on camera toppling an ancient natural rock formation at Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada last week, officials said on Monday.A video posted on April 7 shows the two men, legs bent, pushing the large red rocks. A young girl in the background can be heard yelling: “Don’t fall … Daddy! Daddy!” As the men try to move the rocks, another person is heard off-camera saying, “But why?”The National Park Service is asking anyone who might be able to help identify the “vandalism suspects” to call or text the National Park Service-wide Tip Line 888-653-0009, submit a tip online or email [email protected] Mead National Recreation Area, established in 1936, is 2,338 square miles. It runs along the Colorado River, from the western end of Grand Canyon National Park to below Davis Dam. The sandstone formations on the Redstone Trail were shaped over time by geological forces from 140 million-year-old dunes, according to the National Park Service.“National parks are some of the most special, treasured, and protected areas of our country,” the agency said in a statement. “To protect these natural and cultural resources for this and future generations, all visitors to national parks are expected to follow park laws and regulations.”John Haynes, the public information officer for Lake Mead National Recreation Area, told KVVU, a Fox affiliate in Las Vegas, that he didn’t understand why someone would vandalize it.“This almost feels like a personal attack in a way,” Mr. Haynes said.Vandalism in national parks is nothing new, Jordan Fifer, a public affairs specialist for the National Park Service told The New York Times.“Unfortunately, it’s common,” Mr. Fifer said. “We rarely, however, see something of this nature where the people in the video seem so intent on destruction.”In 2021, vandals destroyed abstract geometric designs at Big Bend National Park in Texas that had survived for thousands of years by scratching their names and dates into them.The U.S. National Park Service condemns such behaviors on its website, noting that disturbing wildlife or damaging their habitats can directly lead to their demise and is illegal. More

Rising sea temperatures around the planet have caused a bleaching event that is expected to be the most extensive on record.The world’s coral reefs are in the throes of a global bleaching event caused by extraordinary ocean temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and international partners announced Monday.It is the fourth such global event on record and is expected to affect more reefs than any other. Bleaching occurs when corals become so stressed that they lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. Bleached corals can recover, but if the water surrounding them is too hot for too long, they die.Coral reefs are vital ecosystems: limestone cradles of marine life that nurture an estimated quarter of ocean species at some point during their life cycles, support fish that provide protein for millions of people and protect coasts from storms. The economic value of the world’s coral reefs has been estimated at $2.7 trillion annually.For the last year, ocean temperatures have been off the charts.“This is scary, because coral reefs are so important,” said Derek Manzello, the coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program, which monitors and predicts bleaching events.The news is the latest example of climate scientists’ alarming predictions coming to pass as the planet heats. Despite decades of warnings from scientists and pledges from leaders, nations are burning more fossil fuels than ever and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.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 U.S., Europe, Russia and China worked together on a 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program. The arrangement’s unraveling and the spike in superpower tensions make this a dangerous moment.When Iran agreed to a deal in 2015 that would require it to surrender 97 percent of the uranium it could use to make nuclear bombs, Russia and China worked alongside the United States and Europe to get the pact done.The Russians even took Iran’s nuclear fuel, for a hefty fee, prompting celebratory declarations that President Vladimir V. Putin could cooperate with the West on critical security issues and help constrain a disruptive regime in a volatile region.A lot has changed in the subsequent nine years. China and Russia are now more aligned with Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” to an American-led order, along with the likes of North Korea. When President Biden gathered the leaders of six nations for a video call from the White House on Sunday to plot a common strategy for de-escalating the crisis between Israel and Iran, there was no chance of getting anyone from Beijing or Moscow on the screen.The disappearance of that unified front is one of the many factors that make this moment seems “particularly dangerous,” said Vali Nasr, an Iranian-born professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, “maybe the most dangerous in decades.”But it is hardly the only one.President Donald J. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Obama-era nuclear deal triggered a predictable counterreaction from Tehran, and after a long pause, Iran resumed enriching uranium — some to near-bomb-grade quality. Today it is far closer to producing a bomb than it was when the accord was in effect.Iran has moved forward with its ballistic missile programs, and some of those weapons were used against Israel this weekend.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesWe 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

More than three years after Brittany Higgins went public with her claim of rape, her case reached a conclusion of sorts.When a young former government employee said on national television in 2021 that she had been sexually assaulted in Australia’s Parliament two years earlier, it shocked the nation and unleashed a wave of anger aimed at the country’s insular, male-dominated political establishment.The employee, Brittany Higgins accused her colleague Bruce Lehrmann of raping her when she was inebriated, and said that she felt pressure from the government at the time not to report the assault. She became a figurehead for a reckoning on women’s rights that ultimately contributed to the electoral ousting of Australia’s conservative national government. But for years, there was no legal conclusion to the case.On Monday, it was finally — somewhat — settled, in a roundabout way.Mr. Lehrmann lost a civil defamation suit that he had filed against the television station that first broadcast Ms. Higgins’ account, with the judge ruling that based on the available evidence, it was more likely than not that Mr. Lehrmann had raped her.The proceedings did not take place in a criminal court, and the offense did not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the standard of proof was a balance of probabilities — a legal term meaning whether something is more likely than not to have occurred.Still, for many, this was a long-awaited validation for Ms. Higgins.“Something resembling justice has been done,” said Sarah Maddison, a political science professor at the University of Melbourne.Justice Michael Lee of the Australian Federal Court in Sydney determined on Monday that it was more likely than not that Ms. Higgins had been inebriated, unaware of her surroundings, and lying still “like a log” while Mr. Lehrmann assaulted her. The judge found that Mr. Lehrmann had been “hellbent” on having sex with her, disregarding whether she had the capacity to consent.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

There’s a problem with leading artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude: We don’t really know how smart they are.That’s because, unlike companies that make cars or drugs or baby formula, A.I. companies aren’t required to submit their products for testing before releasing them to the public. There’s no Good Housekeeping seal for A.I. chatbots, and few independent groups are putting these tools through their paces in a rigorous way.Instead, we’re left to rely on the claims of A.I. companies, which often use vague, fuzzy phrases like “improved capabilities” to describe how their models differ from one version to the next. And while there are some standard tests given to A.I. models to assess how good they are at, say, math or logical reasoning, many experts have doubts about how reliable those tests really are.This might sound like a petty gripe. But I’ve become convinced that a lack of good measurement and evaluation for A.I. systems is a major problem.For starters, without reliable information about A.I. products, how are people supposed to know what to do with them?I can’t count the number of times I’ve been asked in the past year, by a friend or a colleague, which A.I. tool they should use for a certain task. Does ChatGPT or Gemini write better Python code? Is DALL-E 3 or Midjourney better at generating realistic images of people?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 Spoiled Heart,” by Sunjeev Sahota, contrasts race and class struggles in the story of a man’s downfall.THE SPOILED HEART, by Sunjeev SahotaThe titular spoiled heart of Sunjeev Sahota’s new novel is not spoiled in the sense of being overindulged. It is spoiled in the sense of being ruptured, through hardship. A tragedy in which a man comes to personal and profession ruin, the novel explores whether the ruination is self-inflicted or societal, and whether it is a degenerative condition or if some radical surgery can reverse it. Certainly, Sahota has a surgeon’s dexterous hands, and the reader senses his confidence.Sahota’s fourth novel is his first to be set entirely in England. His debut, “Ours Are the Streets,” portrays the radicalization of a young boy in Sheffield and his life-changing return to his home in Pakistan. “The Year of the Runaways,” a Booker Prize finalist, follows three housemates in Sheffield and the interconnected tales of their migration from India. “China Room” counterposes the story of a young bride in 1929 rural Punjab with that of a second-generation immigrant battling addiction in 1999. Gender inequality, cultural alienation and generational trauma are some of Sahota’s favored themes, and they carry over into “The Spoiled Heart.”The protagonist is a 42-year-old factory manager in Chesterfield named Nayan Olak, who is hoping to advance his career by running for general secretary of Britain’s biggest union. The caregiver to his abusive father, Nayan grieves for his mother and son, who died in a fire in the family home and shop some 20 years prior. His marriage didn’t survive the tragedy, and now, in the fall of 2017, he is finally pursuing a love interest: Helen Fletcher, newly returned to her hometown with her son.Helen is a home health aide, so when she turns down an offer to care for Nayan’s father, we sense a conspicuous withholding of information. She and her teenage son, Brandon, have had to relocate from London after a public furor over remarks Brandon made at his job that were deemed racist — a story that Helen doesn’t disclose until it finds a horrible parallel in Nayan’s life.Withheld revelations and dark secrets drive the novel’s family saga and romantic strands. But the story’s engine lies in the union leadership contest between Nayan, who is running on a class-struggle platform, and Megha Sharma, a self-described change candidate fighting for racial equality. They’re both of Indian descent, though Megha hails from a wealthy family while Nayan had a far less privileged upbringing.The campaign escalates to a heated town-hall debate comprising the last act of the novel, in which the left eats itself by pitting identity politics against class solidarity. (Sahota himself has said in an interview that Prime Minister “Rishi Sunak is not my racial friend, he is my class enemy.” This might have been Nayan’s line if the novel were set a few years later, after Sunak’s rise to power, also as a professed change candidate.) Ultimately, the politics become personal, and the descending arc of Nayan’s life steepens.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

Donald Trump was seen arriving in court on Monday in his criminal trial involving the adult film actor Stormy Daniels and the former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump, the first former US president to face a criminal trial, is accused of paying Daniels and McDougal to cover up alleged extramarital liaisons that could have damaged his candidacy in the 2016 election. The trial is scheduled to start this morning, with jury selection in Manhattan supreme court More