Elections

Our clocks will have to spring forward an hour on Sunday, as in most of the country.One of the oldest arguments for the time change is that it saves energy, but there have been many conflicting studies about whether that’s true.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesAt 2 a.m. on Sunday, clocks in California will jump forward an hour, as we make the switch to daylight saving time.The impending loss of 60 minutes of precious sleep got me wondering why the state hasn’t abandoned the twice-a-year changing of the clocks, even though I’ve been hearing about that possibility for years.It turns out to be complicated.As a refresher: Each year in the United States, we spring forward an hour in March, and then go back to standard time in November. The idea is to shift an hour of sunlight from the early morning to the evening, when more people can make use of it. One of the oldest arguments for the time change is that it saves energy, but there have been many conflicting studies about whether that’s true.Changing our clocks has been linked not only to disrupted sleep, as you might expect, but also to a higher risk of car accidents, heart attacks and more. The only states that don’t make the biannual switch are Arizona and Hawaii.In November 2018, Californians overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to allow the Legislature to change the daylight saving time period. But the measure didn’t actually end it.There have been several failed attempts since then to abolish the time change by making daylight saving time permanent. But federal law does not currently allow for such a thing. In the last five years, 19 states have enacted legislation or passed resolutions to move to daylight saving time year-round, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but they’re all contingent on congressional action.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

Although inflation has eased, the eurozone’s central bank said that “domestic price pressures remain high.” Rates remain the highest in the central bank’s history.The European Central Bank on Thursday held interest rates steady for a fourth consecutive meeting, even as policymakers noted the progress that has been made in their battle against high inflation.The deposit rate remained at 4 percent, the highest in the central bank’s two-and-a-half decade history. Officials are weighing how soon they can bring interest rates down.“Interest rates are at levels that, maintained for a sufficiently long duration, will make a substantial contribution,” to returning inflation to the bank’s 2 percent target in a timely manner, the central bank said in a statement. “The Governing Council’s future decisions will ensure that policy rates will be set at sufficiently restrictive levels for as long as necessary.”Last month, the annual rate of inflation in the eurozone slowed to 2.6 percent, edging closer to the central bank’s target. But policymakers at the bank, which sets interest rates for the 20 countries that use the euro, have been cautious about cutting rates too quickly and reinvigorating inflationary pressures. Economists have warned that the path to achieving the bank’s inflation target is likely to be bumpy.These concerns played out in the latest inflation report, where the headline rate for February came in higher than economists had expected and core inflation, a critical gauge of domestic price pressure that strips out energy and food prices, was also higher than forecast.Traders had been betting that interest rates would be cut in June, but started to dampen their expectations after the inflation data was released. Those rate-cut expectations are likely to be bolstered again, as the central bank lowered its inflation forecasts on Thursday. It now sees inflation averaging 2 percent, meeting its target, next year and then falling to 1.9 percent in 2026.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

A large majority of Americans say they don’t trust a government run by the opposition party. So we must ask ourselves: Is it moral, just and wise to vest the ability to end other nations in the hands of one person?“As president, I carried no wallet, no money, no driver’s license, no keys in my pockets — only secret codes that were capable of bringing about the annihilation of much of the world as we knew it,” Ronald Reagan wrote in his autobiography.That’s right. President Biden this very minute could unilaterally decide to launch a devastating nuclear strike anywhere in the world in minutes — without a requirement to consult Congress or the courts. The missiles would be in flight before even the most plugged-in Americans knew they’d been launched.This is an enormous amount of power to grant any single person. That’s doubly true in undemocratic nations, several of which have nuclear arsenals of their own.It is time to explore what alternatives to the president’s sole nuclear authority could be, and that’s what my colleague W.J. Hennigan does in the latest installment of our series “At the Brink,” published this morning.Last year, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Ted Lieu of California introduced legislation that would prevent any American president from launching a first nuclear strike without congressional approval. Passing this bill or one like it is an obvious step.Yet the American public is owed a bigger plan on how countries around the globe can work together to reduce nuclear threats. Today nuclear weapons loom over international politics in ways not seen since the Cold War — a dynamic Times Opinion explored in the first installment of the series earlier this week.The phrase “serious debate” is often tossed around in campaign season. It’s a way to insist on talking about something, even if in a nebulous way. Fortunately, there are chances for a substantive public discussion of nuclear weapons, and we invite the country and the world to join in the conversation. Americans might be surprised to hear what those in other nations think.Times Opinion has invited President Biden and President Trump to explain in our pages what their next administrations would do to reduce these risks. We hope they will do so. We also hope this will be a subject in the upcoming presidential debates. Reporters covering the president and his competitor should press them on their policies and thinking around sole authority and other nuclear policies.Though Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden “will have to confront questions from voters about their mental acuity, competence and stamina to take on another four-year term,” as Hennigan writes today, “regardless of who wins this election or the next one, the American president’s nuclear sole authority is a product of another era, and must be revisited in our new nuclear age.”That should be something that most Americans can agree on. More

The ad, which aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning, asks, “Can Biden even survive until 2029?” The super PAC supporting Donald J. Trump for president is airing a blistering television ad before the State of the Union address, mocking President Biden’s halting response to questions about his memory and even questioning his life span, in a preview of the tenor of the general election ahead. The ad, titled “Jugular,” aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning during one of Mr. Biden’s favorite shows, “Morning Joe” in the 6 a.m. hour. It will air nationally through the day and Friday morning on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and Newsmax, according to the super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc. The size of the two-day ad buy was not immediately clear. The spot appeared designed to try to get under Mr. Biden’s skin at a pivotal moment, as he prepares to give the State of the Union and faces low job approval ratings against his predecessor, Mr. Trump. The ad focuses on a topic that Mr. Biden and his allies have shown frustration about — questions over his age. At the age of 81, Mr. Biden is America’s oldest president. Mr. Trump is 77.A Biden campaign spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A report by the special counsel, Robert Hur, who was investigating Mr. Biden’s possession of classified documents at his home after he served as vice president, infuriated the president’s allies with what they called gratuitous descriptions of his difficulty recalling certain events and details. Among them, according to Mr. Hur, was when Mr. Biden’s eldest son, Beau, passed away, a statement Mr. Biden’s allies pushed back on. The ad uses footage of Mr. Biden responding to that report at a White House news conference, during which he at times seemed visibly angry and flustered. The ad says that people understand Mr. Biden’s “weakness” and adds, “Can Biden even survive until 2029?” It then asks, over footage of Vice President Kamala Harris laughing and Mr. Biden falling on the stairs while boarding Air Force One, “Can we?” The tactic of airing ads in order to be seen by a president was used to reach Mr. Trump, particularly when opponents were hoping to force him to react. Among those who used the tactic was the Lincoln Project, the group of anti-Trump Republicans. And Trump has had his own verbal stumbles, including confusing the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley, his erstwhile primary rival, and calling Mr. Biden “Obama” in recent speeches. But this particular spot focuses on what has been raised by Democrats, some of Mr. Biden’s allies and a number of voters as a concern, as Mr. Trump seeks to set the terms of the general election for voters as one of “strength” versus “weakness.” “Biden is weak, and America is suffering because of it,” said Taylor Budowich, the chief executive of MAGA Inc. “Tonight’s State of the Union will not silence those waiting in the wings from laughing every time Joe Biden stumbles or bumbles.” More

The Fed chair said regulators could scale back or rework a sweeping capital-requirements proposal that Wall Street has been fighting for months.Jay Powell, the Fed chair, stunned Wall Street yesterday with an apparent U-turn in bank regulation.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesJay Powell’s surprise For months, Wall Street C.E.O.s have been complaining bitterly and lobbying against the prospect of higher capital requirements, which would require them to keep more money on hand and would lower their profits. It appears they have scored a big win.Jay Powell dropped the bombshell in his testimony before the House on Wednesday. Markets were still digesting the Fed chair’s go-slow comments on interest rate cuts when he signaled that proposed new rules to force lenders to beef up their books would be scaled back, or reworked.“I do expect that there will be broad and material changes to the proposal,” he said.The capital rules, known as the “Basel III Endgame,” would apply to the largest banks. They would have to set aside a bigger emergency cushion to soak up losses stemming from shocks like the bank run last year that led to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and prompted a wider crisis.But the proposals have come under fire from bank chiefs, industry lobbyists, Republican lawmakers and even some liberal members of Congress, who fear that a mandate to set aside billions to fight the next potential crisis could feed another one.Critics fear that Basel III would crimp lending just as banks grapple with upheaval in commercial real estate. Lenders face a looming “maturity wall” of as much as $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate loans set to come over the next two years.That risk came into blaring focus during Powell’s testimony. The stock price of New York Community Bank, a Long Island-based lender with a mountain of souring real estate loans, plummeted on news it was seeking emergency funding. (More on that below.)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

This documentary by Ido Mizrahy examines the psychological challenges of space exploration for astronauts and their loved ones as scientists consider whether humans could reach Mars.In “Space: The Longest Goodbye,” scientists researching the problems of long-term space exploration go where movies have gone before. Sending astronauts into hibernation to conserve scarce resources? Pairing them with an artificially intelligent entity that can act as a pal and sounding board? Screenwriters have tried these things already, with results probably best kept in fiction.But such gambits may offer real solutions for getting humans to Mars. And they are gambits that this fitfully intriguing, sometimes wide-eyed documentary, directed by Ido Mizrahy, takes seriously.“Soft, squishy humans are completely unfathomable to engineers,” says Jack Stuster, an anthropologist who asked residents of the International Space Station to keep journals. One of the principal interviewees is Al Holland, a psychologist who assembled a unit at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to provide support for astronauts. He discusses his experience in 2010 consulting on the Chilean mine disaster, which had striking parallels with the isolation of space life.We also hear from Kayla Barron, a submarine warfare officer who decided to go to space, and her husband, who stayed behind; as a military couple, they were used to living separately, but this posed a different challenge. And we see clips of personal video chats that the astronaut Cady Coleman held with her husband and son back on Earth, through a system that sometimes didn’t work. “It’s hard for me to really realize how hard it was for a little kid to just have to be so very patient,” she recalls in the documentary.On Mars missions, distance will make similar real-time communication impossible, which means that astronauts won’t even have that kind of intermittent contact. “Space: The Longest Goodbye” leaves open the question of whether anyone could get to the red planet with his or her sanity intact.Space: The Longest GoodbyeNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 27 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on most major platforms. More

From the team behind “Sound of Freedom,” this biopic of an Italian nun in 19th-century New York City is stuffed with sanctimonious speeches.“Cabrini,” a cluttered biopic of an Italian nun on a mission in 19th-century Manhattan, is directed by Alejandro Monteverde and produced by Angel Studios. You may recognize the names as the team behind “Sound of Freedom,” the 2023 conservative hit thriller.Yet this new, pious tale, assembled around the ecumenical theme of perseverance, almost makes one nostalgic for the frisson of provocation. The gauzy goodness of this film is axiomatic, and its litany of sanctimonious speeches (“the world is too small for what I intend to do”) generally repels inquiry, let alone controversy.The story begins as Francesca Cabrini (Cristiana Dell’Anna) and Catholic nuns from her order immigrate to New York to run an orphanage in Five Points, the Lower Manhattan neighborhood plagued by violence and adversity. She goes on to challenge various clergymen and politicians in her quest to save the youth and aid the downtrodden, namely, Italians. I should mention that the saintly striver is all the while giving support to a former prostitute, hoping to open a hospital and enduring a lung condition with a terminal prognosis.It’s inspiring stuff, rendered stodgy and repetitive. The screenplay contains numerous scenes of Cabrini striding through opulent rooms as she goes head-to-head with bureaucratic white men; several sequences could have been scrapped in favor of more time spent with the rabble of orphans under her care. Among the multitude, only one suffering boy, bravely volunteering as a representative case, is accorded a name and a back story.CabriniRated PG-13 for some sinful material. Running time: 2 hours 25 minutes. In theaters. More

Some doctors said the measure would allow them to resume treatments quickly, though legal experts cautioned that state constitutional challenges may still arise.Alabama lawmakers on Wednesday passed legislation to shield in vitro fertilization providers from civil and criminal liability, capping off their scramble to allow the fertility treatment after a State Supreme Court ruling found that frozen embryos should be considered children.But it was unclear whether the protections would be enough for the state’s major fertility clinics to restart treatments. Doctors at one clinic said they were ready to begin again as early as the end of the week, while another clinic said it was not assured about the scope of protections and would wait for “legal clarification.”As the measure headed to Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, for her signature, lawmakers and legal experts acknowledged that it did not address existential questions raised by the court about the definition of personhood, leaving open the prospect of legal challenges in the future. The overwhelming vote of support — 81 to 12 with nine abstentions in the House and 29 to 1 in the Senate — came barely two weeks after the ruling. It demonstrated the intense urgency among Republicans to protect I.V.F. treatments, even if that meant sidestepping the thorny contradictions between their pledge to protect unborn life and fertility treatment practices.“It’s happy tears, it’s a sigh of relief just because we know we are protected,” said Stormie Miller, a Hoover, Ala., mother who had twin girls through I.V.F. and has two remaining frozen embryos. Talking about the future of those embryos, she added, “We’re able to make that decision for ourselves and not have someone make that decision for us.”Reproductive medicine in the state was thrown into turmoil by the court ruling, which applied to a group of families who filed a wrongful-death claim over the accidental destruction of their embryos at a clinic in Mobile in 2020. But the court’s interpretation of Alabama statute that frozen embryos should be considered children — coupled with an impassioned, theology-driven opinion from the chief justice — sowed fear about civil and criminal liability among doctors and clinics, and raised concern about the ramifications of other states taking a similar stance.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