Elections

Who says Area is just about the concept and not the clothes?About half an hour after the Area show ended in New York on Super Bowl Sunday, Taylor Swift appeared in Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas wearing a pair of the brand’s “crystal slit jeans” — a high-waist denim style sliced diagonally at the center of each thigh, the patently faux “rip” framed by diamanté. It was like a runway-to-real-life feature happening in actual time — or Super time.Area, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary, is generally one of those fashion week brands that most nonfashion people see and say, “But who would wear that?” (Well, other than Simone Biles making a viral statement at the Met Gala.) Ms. Swift was the perfect answer. The designer Piotrek Panszczyk — and indeed all of fashion, which sometimes suffers from a clothes-concept perception gap — could not have planned it better had he tried.Mr. Panszczyk sits firmly in the Moschino-Schiaparelli fashion tradition of wielding sartorial humor as a commentary on contemporary life, though he tends to sit on the punny performance art end of that spectrum. Last season he used “Flintstones” bones and “Dynasty” faux furs to symbolize the evolution of luxury and caste signaling, which came after a season built around the idea of fruit and mortality, mostly in the form of banana skirts. The looks attract the sort of person who does not mind going on a milk run in Bushwick draped in rhinestones and not much else.Ms. Swift, however, is an endorsement of a different kind. It’s not the first time she has worn Area denim. Last April she wore the brand’s crystal butterfly jeans in New York, and in October she wore a pair of Area embellished jeans shorts to another Chiefs game. (She does like a bit of sparkle.) But this is the first time she wore its denim when more than 100 million people were watching. It’s a potent, and deserved, argument for the future of Area as a credible business, rather than merely a fashion week gimmick.AreaAreaAreaAreaAreaAreaAs was the latest collection, which chose as its hot topic the peculiarly modern state of endless watching — of looking, and being looked at in turn. One that seemed notably apropos given the attention being paid to Ms. Swift and everything she does. It’s a serious subject, but the clothes were awfully fun.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

An overtime classic, featuring appearances by Usher and Taylor Swift, could make this year’s Super Bowl a hugely profitable money-maker for the N.F.L.Did the Taylor Swift effect vault this year’s Super Bowl into the record books?John G Mabanglo/EPA, via ShutterstockThe N.F.L. scores bigIn many ways, the N.F.L. couldn’t have asked for a better outcome for the Super Bowl. It got a thrilling overtime victory that cemented the Kansas City Chiefs as the league’s latest dynasty; a well-reviewed halftime show by Usher; a full roster of pricey ads; and, of course, Taylor Swift in person.It was a powerful reminder of the Super Bowl’s singular perch in America’s cultural landscape, and how that can translate into billions for a juggernaut sports league.The game was a place to see and be seen. Yes, Swift arrived in time from Japan to cheer on her boyfriend, the Chiefs star Travis Kelce. And A-list celebrities like Jay-Z, Beyoncé and LeBron James were spotted at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.Also in attendance were corporate moguls including Elon Musk — who touted a surge in activity on his X social network during the game — Tim Cook of Apple and the Twitter and Block co-founder Jack Dorsey, who was wearing a crypto in-joke T-shirt.The game could set a record. The broadcast, perhaps aided by an army of Swift fans, may surpass the 115 million viewers who tuned in last year, making that the most-watched show in U.S. history. (Viewership for N.F.L. games has rebounded strongly in recent years; the A.F.C. and N.F.C. championship matches on Jan. 28 accounted for nearly 39 percent of national linear TV viewing.)That would help explain why advertisers were still willing to fork over $7 million for a 30-second spot during last night’s broadcast. (More on the ads later.) “In this era of fragmentation, the Super Bowl is what television used to be,” Brad Adgate, a veteran media analyst, told The Times.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

table {
max-width: 600px;
width: 100%;
margin-right: auto;
margin-left: auto;
font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
color: var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);
font-size: 0.875rem;
}
th, td {
text-align: right;
}
th:first-child, td:first-child {
text-align: left;
}

td, th {
border-bottom: 1px solid var(–color-stroke-quaternary,#DFDFDF);
padding-top: 4px;
padding-bottom: 6px;
}

th {
font-weight: 700;
}

Year
Minutes to Midnight

2023
1.5

2020
1.67

2018
2

2017
2.5

2015
3

2012
5

2010
6

2007
5

2002
7

1998
9

1995
14

1991
17

1990
10

1988
6

1984
3

1981
4

1980
7

1974
9

1972
12

1969
10

1968
7

1963
12

1960
7

1953
2

1949
3

1947
7

The Bomb and I go way back. In Seattle, where I grew up in the 1950s and ’60s, it was common wisdom that in the event of nuclear war, we were No. 2 on the target list because Seattle was the home of Boeing, maker of B-52 bombers and Minuteman missiles.In school we had various drills for various catastrophes, and we had to remember which was which. Earthquake? Run outside. The Bomb? Run inside, to an inner corridor that had no windows. In the summer, my high-school friends and I would disappear for a couple of weeks into the backcountry of the Cascades or the Olympic Mountains. I always wondered whether we would emerge to find the world in ashes.Once, in Santa Monica in 1971, I thought it was finally happening. I woke up on the floor, having been bounced out of my bed early one February morning. There was a huge roar. Everything was shaking. I crept to my one window and pulled aside the curtain, expecting to see a mushroom cloud rising over the Los Angeles basin. I saw nothing. When the radio came back, I learned there had been a deadly earthquake in the San Fernando Valley.I was sent on this trip down memory lane by the announcement on Jan. 23 from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that it had decided not to change the setting of the Doomsday Clock, a metaphorical timepiece invented in 1947 as a way to dramatize the threat of nuclear Armageddon. The clock was originally designed with a 15-minute range, counting down to midnight — the stroke of doom — and the Bulletin’s members move it from time to time in response to current events, which now include threats like climate change and pandemics.In a burst of optimism in 1991, after the Soviet Union broke up and the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed, the clock was turned way back to 17 minutes to midnight. “The Cold War is over,” the Bulletin’s editors wrote. “The 40-year-long East-West nuclear arms race has ended.”A year ago, after Russia invaded Ukraine and brandished the threat of using nuclear weapons, the clock was set to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has yet come to The End. The threat of nuclear weapons in Ukraine has diminished since then, but the clock remains poised at 90 seconds before zero.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 group once seemed like an unstoppable force in American politics. What went wrong?A decade ago, the National Rifle Association seemed like an unstoppable force in American politics. A shooter had killed 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. Democrats and Republicans in Congress appeared ready to pass new restrictions on guns. The N.R.A. called on its members to contact their representatives and voice their opposition, and the bills died.Today, the N.R.A. has shed hundreds of thousands of members and large sums of money. It is standing trial for fraud and self-dealing in New York. “The N.R.A. is little more than a shell of itself after hemorrhaging hundreds of millions in legal fees,” Joshua Powell, a former top N.R.A. official who settled with the state before the trial, told The Times. The organization’s fall is not a death knell for Second Amendment advocates, but it is a blow.Today’s newsletter will explain what went wrong with the group.Loss of trustThe N.R.A.’s troubles began with a feud with its advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen.The agency was effectively the public face of the N.R.A. for decades, spearheading the group’s online channel NRATV and campaigns like “I am the N.R.A.” But the relationship between the company and its client deteriorated. They disagreed about political messaging. At one point, N.R.A. leadership accused Ackerman McQueen of trying to oust the group’s leader, Wayne LaPierre.Wayne LaPierreHaiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe N.R.A. and Ackerman McQueen fought out their differences in court and settled in 2022.But the infighting drew government officials’ attention. After an investigation, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit in 2020. She has cited exorbitant spending by the N.R.A.’s leaders, particularly LaPierre’s use of the nonprofit’s funds to cover millions of dollars in expensive clothes, travel and other luxuries.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 composer Matthew Sheeran, brother of the pop star Ed Sheeran, discusses how he translated microtonal electronic music for a chamber orchestra.If you start at the middle C of a piano and strike every key on your way up to the next C on the keyboard, you will play each of the 12 notes that make up an octave. Those 12 semitones are the foundation of most Western music.But what if they were not? What if that same octave were equally divided into 14 tones, or 16? What if Beethoven had written the “Eroica” Symphony with a scale of 19 notes, or Schoenberg had written tone rows with 23? What would their music sound like?Those were the questions that the composer Easley Blackwood Jr., a pillar of the Chicago new music community who died last year, asked in his “Twelve Microtonal Etudes for Electronic Music Media” (1979-80). Composed for a project funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, each of Blackwood’s “Etudes” shows off the qualities of different, often alien microtonal octaves.It was an endeavor that took Blackwood, a composer of predominantly atonal music, in an odd new direction, said James Ginsburg, the founder and president of Cedille Records, which has released recordings of many of Blackwood’s works, including the “Etudes.”“He became so fascinated with tonal writing through writing for other tunings,” Ginsburg recalled, “that after he did this, he suddenly changed gears as a composer, and started writing everything tonally.”Blackwood recorded the “Etudes” on a synthesizer, and performing them live on acoustic instruments was practically impossible. But technology has evolved, and a new recording on Cedille, “Acoustic Microtonal,” illustrates to astonishing effect what this music might sound like if it were played by a chamber orchestra.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 explain the teams, the halftime show, the prop bets and more.Nothing brings together more Americans — not awards shows, not television series finales, not even presidential debates — than the Super Bowl.Will this year’s game, between the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Francisco 49ers, be the most watched ever? By one measure — the total number of people watching — it seems likely to be. Last year’s game set the record, with 115 million viewers in the U.S., and it did not have Taylor Swift.Swift’s expected presence at the game, to cheer on her boyfriend, the Chiefs’ tight end Travis Kelce, has the potential to help it break the 1982 record for the highest proportion of Americans who watched: 49 percent.In the rest of today’s newsletter, we’ll tell you what you need to know about this year’s Super Bowl; the teams, the strange bets, the halftime show and more.The teamsKansas City Chiefs: If you’re someone who watches football only on Super Bowl Sunday, it may seem unremarkable that the Chiefs are playing today. They’ve reached the Super Bowl in four of the past five seasons. Yet this season was not a great one for the Chiefs. They lost six games, the most they have since Patrick Mahomes took over as starting quarterback. Their offense struggled with turnovers and dropped passes. Kelce’s performances seemed to falter even as his celebrity grew; he failed to score a touchdown in the final six games of the regular season.Since the playoffs began, though, the team has looked more like the Chiefs of old. Kelce has scored three touchdowns in the past two games. And the defense has been excellent all season.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

Single, anti-consumerist or just not a romantic? From petty heartbreak healers to anti-Valentine’s Day parties, groups are finding ways to resonate with naysayers.Lilly Calman is not in the mood this Valentine’s Day for the flowers, chocolates or a romantic dinner for two, especially after a recent breakup.“I’m very angry,” said Ms. Calman, 26, adding that it had been painful to see all the holiday paraphernalia in store aisles.She found a more fitting outlet for her mood this year: a fund-raiser for the San Antonio zoo that will symbolically name a roach or rodent after an ex and feed it to one of the zoo’s animals.“The visual image of him getting eaten by a Komodo dragon is pretty satisfying,” said Ms. Calman, who donated $25 for the rat option. She is hoping the zoo sends her a video so she can host a screening with a friend. “I love reptiles. I think it’s cool.”The annual campaign has raised over $235,000 since the zoo first ran it in 2020, underscoring the appeal of alternative Valentine’s Day rituals for people who are uninterested in the coupledom of it all.The traditions of Valentine’s Day bring strong feelings, both for and against. Do you appreciate a cute tradition? Or do you hold it in contempt as a consumerist scam? Critics have blamed it for upholding a narrow-minded model of relationships as heterosexual and monogamous.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 night before my father died, Ronald Reagan, I listened to his breathing — ragged, thin. Nothing like that of the athletic man who rode horses, built fences at the ranch, constructed jumps from old phone poles, cut back shrubs along riding trails. Or of the man who lifted his voice to the overcast sky and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”Time and history folded over themselves inside me, distant memories somersaulting with more recent realities — the 10 years of his journey into the murky world of Alzheimer’s and my determination to abandon the well-worn trail of childhood complaints and forge a new path. To be blunt, I had resolved to grow the hell up.I can still remember how it felt to be his child, though, and how the attention he paid to America and its issues made me jealous.Long before my father ran for office, politics sat between us at the dinner table. The conversations were predictable: Big government was the problem, the demon, the thing America had to be wary of. I hated those conversations. I wanted to talk about the boy who bullied me on the school bus, not government overreach.In time I came to resent this country for claiming so much of him. Yet today, it’s his love for America that I miss most. His eyes often welled with tears when “America the Beautiful” was played, but it wasn’t just sentiment. He knew how fragile democracy is, how easily it can be destroyed. He used to tell me about how Germany slid into dictatorship, the biggest form of government of all.I wish so deeply that I could ask him about the edge we are teetering on now, and how America might move out of its quagmire of anger, its explosions of hatred. How do we break the cycle of violence, both actual and verbal? How do we cross the muddy divides that separate us, overcome the partisan rancor that drives elected officials to heckle the president in his State of the Union address? When my father was shot, Tip O’Neill, then speaker of the House and always one of his most devoted political opponents, came into his hospital room and knelt down to pray with him, reciting the 23rd Psalm. Today a gesture like that seems impossible.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