Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      2 Books to Read Instead of Meditating

      by

      A gentle and clever comic novel; a poetic and tender essay on addiction.Édouard Manet/Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial CollectionDear readers,Anyone who is bad at meditating will be familiar with the tension that obtains when you try to force serenity. Nothing could be more aggravating than being told to relax — especially when you’re issuing the order yourself.In lieu of attempting to clear my head through more direct means, I’ve been gravitating toward contemplative novels and poetry this spring. Two of them below, for your consideration.—Molly“Judgement Day,” by Penelope LivelyFiction, 1980First, the place. Laddenham is a country village in England The time is 1980-ish. Light industry is booming and new houses are going up to capture prosperous overspill from London.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Someone Should Tell Trump He’s About to Make the Trade Deficit Worse

      by

      There are many reasons President Trump should not be pushing Congress to pass huge tax cuts, but here’s one you may not have heard: Budget deficits and trade deficits are twins. When the former go up, so, generally, do the latter. So at the same moment Mr. Trump is upending the global economy in a feckless attempt to eliminate America’s trade deficit, he’s essentially pressuring Congress to increase it.Here’s how it happens. The United States buys a lot of goods from other countries, and we pay for the goods with dollars. But those dollars are no good abroad, so the countries we buy from invest them here. Some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, into businesses that are raising cash to build new data centers or expand natural gas facilities or construct new apartment complexes. Other dollars go into Treasury bonds or bills, which the federal government uses to fund our large budget deficit. (The same thing happens in reverse when other countries buy from the United States — but to a lesser degree, since our imports are larger than our exports.)If the budget deficit rises, American investors could theoretically cover the shortfall, but that would mean putting their money in Treasury securities rather than businesses and their capital needs. The other option is that foreign countries amass more dollars and plow them back into the U.S. economy. How would they get those additional dollars? From all the German cars and Chinese electronics and imported beer that Americans will buy with the money from their tax cuts.More generally, a larger budget deficit will require the government to borrow more money, which drives up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean a stronger dollar, which makes it more expensive for people in other countries to buy our products, cheaper for us to buy theirs, and thus the trade deficit widens.So cutting taxes, as Mr. Trump has told Congress to do, will drive up the budget deficit — and the trade deficit. All of this may seem counterintuitive, but it’s one of the few things that economists agree about.The budget deficit is already worryingly high and the tax cuts Mr. Trump is seeking would make it even larger. Last year the United States ran a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, or 6 percent of the gross domestic product — higher than at any other time except during World War II, the late-2000s financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic — despite strong economic growth and no unusual emergencies.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In the Dark, We Found Joy

      by

      We took out a candle, lit it and finished our dinner. In darkness. In complete silence.On April 28, the so-called Great Blackout, one of the strangest days of our lives, left all of the Iberian Peninsula in the dark. For over 10 hours we were completely cut off, unable to make phone calls or connect to the internet. Later I learned the luckiest among us had found an old transistor radio with batteries to hear the news. The three of us — my partner, my 6-month-old daughter and me — had no such luck. Now it was nighttime. Fear and all its ghosts might have lurked.Occasionally, a random car or a few pedestrians with flashlights passed by our window. One might imagine the other things that were quiet. How the burglar alarms — the big business of keeping fear at bay — were not working. How the security cameras had gone blind. That no one was able to call the police. This, then, might have been a night dreamed of by thieves. A night when the evil-minded would seize the cover of darkness and all that silence to break into factories, businesses, shops, isolated villages, country houses or urban dwellings. But they did not.This was no nightmare. Indeed, the Great Blackout was the opposite. It was like a dream — a world populated only by the kindest among us, evil intentions quashed. Average citizens directed traffic at intersections without working lights. Others brought water and food to passengers stranded on trains that had stopped in the middle of nowhere. Taxi drivers, unable to process credit cards, gave out their cellphone numbers so customers could pay their fares when the electricity returned.In the transportation chaos — the trains that stalled, the buses that didn’t come, the subways idled — some schools stayed open late that afternoon so no children would be left alone waiting for someone to pick them up. Hospitals, always free in Spain, operated with generators and continued to care for the ill. Without working cellphones, children and teens gathered in ways more typical of decades past than of today. Strangers came together in the streets to talk or drink beer. Improvised signs advised everyone to “chug it before it gets warm.”All around, everything I saw underscored how the world carried on peacefully. It seemed everyone embraced the day with a good dose of humor and — dare I say? — even joy. Somehow we knew that everything would be fine. That there would be no muggings, no threatening disorder. Somehow we knew that no one would pull out a gun. This was not one of Hollywood’s apocalyptic films. Quite to the contrary: Calm, generosity and dedication among public servants and workers prevailed.Perhaps that is the great difference between the forces of the far right — in America, in parts of Europe, now insisting the only true path is one of individualism, each man for himself — and the trust that the European welfare state that I was raised with builds in the minds of a community. Here we found we had trust in others and in our country, in the sense of community. Is there a more powerful weapon than that? Is there a greater shield than that? Knowing that others are there to help you, not to harm you, that we each need one another. That is the key.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      We Should Play the Constitution Like a Piano

      by

      Written in the 1780s, it both enlightens and confounds. Its brilliance is undiminished, but the intervening years make it feel distant, at times impossibly so, challenging modern interpreters to understand what an 18th-century text means today.Sadly, our attempt to understand the U.S. Constitution has too often become a mechanistic search for a correct answer, with little nuanced judgment. That is thanks to the ascendance of originalism on the Supreme Court. The originalist justices believe the meaning of the document was fixed when it was enacted, as opposed to living constitutionalists, who argue that the meaning and application of the Constitution should adapt to a changing world and not be bound by the judgments of men who lived centuries ago.The originalist methodology fails to acknowledge the role that one’s individual judgment inevitably plays in interpretation. Total objectivity is an attractive but dangerous illusion that shields the court from wrestling with our society’s complexity and from criticism of its opinions.Today, with a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches seemingly underway, the need for a thoughtful, credible reckoning with the Constitution’s meaning is especially urgent. Legal scholars, judges and constitutional lawyers would do well to consider the way interpreters have wrestled with different but equally challenging late 18th-century texts: classical music compositions.Art and the law, of course, serve vastly different functions in society. But the performing musician’s embrace of complexity is precisely what is needed from the courts at this moment.To a musician, a strictly originalist approach feels intolerably constricting, even perverse. A compelling performance of a piece of music requires both accuracy and creativity, insight and instinct, reverence for the composer and the breath of life brought by the interpreter.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Kennedy Gets Right, And Wrong, About Antidepressants

      by

      Like every psychiatrist, I have patients for whom antidepressants are transformative, even lifesaving. But I also see a messier, less advertised side of these medications. There are patients with sexual side effects that they hadn’t known could be caused by their antidepressants because previous doctors never warned them. I’ve had patients experience manic episodes or suicidal thoughts with specific antidepressants, and patients who no longer need to take the drugs, but suffer severe withdrawal symptoms when they try to taper off.The medical community has reacted with alarm to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s claim that his family members have had a harder time getting off antidepressants than heroin. The American Psychiatric Association and five other psychiatric organizations recently declared that likening antidepressants to Schedule I drugs like heroin was “misleading” and emphasized that antidepressants are “safe and effective.”But some patients heard Mr. Kennedy’s comments and felt that someone in a position of power was finally speaking for them. On online forums dedicated to helping people withdraw from antidepressants, such as Surviving Antidepressants, patients describe coming “undone” and going through “pure hell” in efforts to get off their medication.They see in Mr. Kennedy someone who is alert to the seriousness of their problems, after years of neglect by the medical community, and it doesn’t matter to them that their experiences may be relatively rare or that Mr. Kennedy’s health movement, which disregards science and embraces anti-vaccine ideology, is unlikely to serve patients’ best interests.Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.s (the most commonly prescribed form of antidepressant) were originally studied for short-term use and were approved based on trials that lasted only a few months. But people quickly began taking the drugs for extended periods. Now patients are likely to stay on antidepressants for years, even decades. Of those who try to quit, conservative estimates suggest about one in six experiences antidepressant withdrawal, with around one in 35 having more severe symptoms. Protracted and disabling withdrawal is estimated to be far less common than that. Still, in a country where more than 30 million people take antidepressants, even relatively rare complications can affect thousands of people.This is why it’s a travesty that nearly four decades after the approval of Prozac, there’s not a single high-quality randomized controlled trial that can guide clinicians in safely tapering patients off antidepressants. The lack of research also means that official U.S. guidelines for it are sparse. It’s no surprise that patients have flocked to online communities to figure out strategies on their own, sometimes cutting pills into increasingly smaller fractions to gradually lower their dose over months and 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

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      In Singapore’s Election, All Eyes Are on the Margin of Victory, Not the Winner

      by

      The People’s Action Party is widely expected to continue its six-decade reign. But discontent with its policies is fueling a growing opposition.The last time Singapore held elections, it was in the throes of a global crisis. That’s also true today.Five years ago, the governing party portrayed itself as the steady hand to guide the nation through the coronavirus pandemic. The pitch is the same this time, only with a different catalyst: President Trump’s upending of the world’s trade order.And, like last time, there is no doubt that the People’s Action Party, which has been in power since 1959, will retain power. But Saturday’s election will be a test of the popularity of the P.A.P., which had a near record-low showing in 2020, even as it garnered a clear majority. It was growing evidence of a desire for a competitive democracy in the city-state.When polls opened on Saturday morning, people stood in line to cast their ballot as heavy rain fell in parts of Singapore. The voting age is 21 here, and all citizens are required to vote. Polling stations close at 8 p.m. local time, and a final result is not expected until after midnight.Many political analysts agree that the opposition is gaining clout in Singapore, with voters unhappy about the P.A.P.’s response to the rising cost of living. During the campaign, rallies for the country’s main opposition party, the Workers’ Party, were packed, and its merchandise sold out. Still, Pritam Singh, the party’s leader, took pains to assure the public that his party was not contesting enough seats to form a government, merely that Singapore needed a more balanced political system.“When you have opposition in Parliament, your alternative voice is heard by the government,” Mr. Singh said at his party’s first rally last 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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      2 Planes Abort Landings as Army Helicopter Flies Near D.C. Airport

      by

      The episode followed a fatal collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet in January, and prompted concern and outrage among officials.Federal transportation safety officials were investigating on Friday after two commercial flights aborted landings because an Army helicopter had entered the airspace around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, where helicopter traffic has been restricted since a fatal collision in January.Air traffic controllers instructed Delta Air Lines Flight 1671 and Republic Airways Flight 5825 to abort their landings around 2:30 p.m. Thursday because of the helicopter’s presence, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, which has begun an investigation along with the National Transportation Safety Board.The helicopter was a Black Hawk headed to the nearby Pentagon, the safety board said.Both planes later landed safely, but the episode prompted outrage among officials in Washington.“Our helicopter restrictions around DCA are crystal clear,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a social media post, using the airport’s code. He said he would speak to the Defense Department about “why the hell our rules were disregarded.”The Army said in a brief statement that the helicopter had been “directed by Pentagon air traffic control to conduct a ‘go-around,’ overflying the Pentagon helipad in accordance with approved flight procedures,” as it headed to the Pentagon.“The incident is currently under investigation,” the Army said. “The United States Army remains committed to aviation safety and conducting flight operations within all approved guidelines and procedures.”The F.A.A. had restricted nonessential helicopter traffic around the airport, which is just miles from the Capitol and the White House, after a Jan. 29 midair collision between an American Airlines flight and Army Black Hawk helicopter killed 67 people.The episode on Thursday also renewed concerns by lawmakers, many of whom use the airport.Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who leads the Senate’s committee that handles transportation, said the incident underscored continuing risks posed by military flights near the airport and called for legislation to improve civilian air safety.“Just days after military flights resumed in the National Capital Region, the Army is once again putting the traveling public at risk,” Mr. Cruz said on social media. “Thank God there was a decisive response from air traffic controllers and pilots, or else these two close calls could have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives.”Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, the committee’s top Democrat, criticized the military flight’s proximity to commercial traffic.She called it “far past time” for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the F.A.A. “to give our airspace the security and safety attention it deserves.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Before the Fire, L.A. Tried to Restore Second Reservoir in Palisades

      by

      Water supplies ran dry in the Pacific Palisades fire, in part because a reservoir was shut down for repairs. Records show the city had tried and failed to prepare an alternative reservoir.Seven months before fire swept through the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, the city’s water managers were formulating a plan to revive an old reservoir to temporarily boost the area’s limited water capacity.The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was exploring the option because the neighborhood’s main reservoir — the Santa Ynez Reservoir — had been taken offline as a result of a torn cover, which officials had begun preparations to repair early in 2024. The repair project was still months away from completion this January when the fire broke out, and with the reservoir empty, firefighters ran short of water in fighting the blaze.Emails released to The New York Times under public records law show that the city had searched for solutions to rectify the monthslong supply shortage but, despite lengthy discussions and preliminary preparations, failed to correct the problem in time.In early June 2024, crews spent several days cleaning the Pacific Palisades Reservoir, a facility that was about three miles away from the larger Santa Ynez site, and that was retired in 2013. The work, officials wrote, was “in preparation for temporarily placing the Pacific Palisades Reservoir back into service while the Santa Ynez Reservoir is out of service.”After the cleaning was completed, the crews planned more work, including disinfection of the area and installation of new pipes.But the plan to bring the old reservoir back online was never completed. Ellen Cheng, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said in an email on Friday that the city ultimately determined that bringing the reservoir back online could have posed a risk to workers and residents of nearby homes because of structural and other safety issues.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