Age, Chronological

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares50 Views

    The Fear Factor and America’s Future

    by

    More from our inbox:Depression and AgingPaul Revere’s Legacy Robert Gumpert/ReduxTo the Editor:“I Have Never Been More Afraid for My Country’s Future,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, April 17), is an alarm we all need to hear. His main point couldn’t be clearer: The things that have made America strong — our rule of law, our global partnerships and our ability to lead in innovation — are being systematically undermined by a leader more focused on revenge than building a future.While other countries, like China, are investing in clean energy, advanced technology and long-term strategy, we’re clinging to the past and isolating ourselves in the process. If we don’t start paying attention, demanding accountability and thinking beyond the next news cycle, we will wake up in a country that’s poorer, more divided and left behind.We ignore Mr. Friedman’s warning at our own peril.Robert StewartChantilly, Va.To the Editor:Like Thomas L. Friedman, I have never been more afraid for my country’s future. But not because of the mistaken economic policies he focuses upon, dangerous as those may be. By far the most dangerous and repugnant reality of President Trump’s second term is his ongoing violation of constitutional guardrails and democratic norms so that he can assume a level of power never intended for any president.This threat is not simply an undesirable context for potentially fatal economic actions, as Mr. Friedman indicates. Rather, those guardrails are more fundamental to a strong economic future than any particular policy action. Even more important, they are absolutely essential to the decent society that economic activity and government are supposed to promote.Robert WardAlbany, N.Y.To the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman’s column captures, with characteristic urgency and clarity, the Trump administration’s surrealism and strategic incoherence.His critique of President Trump’s nostalgia-driven economic nationalism — especially the fetishization of coal at the expense of clean technology innovation — is timely and damning. Few writers can as effectively tie in the everyday absurdities of this administration to their long-term global implications.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

    More stories

    • 163 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      D.N.C. Leader Moves to Rein In Deputy Who Went Rogue on Primary Challenges

      by

      Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, criticized a vice chair of the party, David Hogg, over his controversial plan to challenge Democratic incumbents.A brewing weeklong fight inside the Democratic National Committee burst into the open on Thursday as the party’s chairman, Ken Martin, rebuked one of his vice chairs and moved to stop him from intervening in Democratic primary races while serving as a top party official.The vice chair, David Hogg, 25, had announced last week that he planned to spend money in Democratic primaries through his outside group, Leaders We Deserve, and that he hoped to raise $20 million for the effort.That set off a storm of criticism from Democrats angry at the idea that a top party official would be putting his finger on the scale in primary contests. On Thursday, Mr. Martin responded publicly for the first time, declaring, “No D.N.C. officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary.”Mr. Martin said he had “great respect” for Mr. Hogg and understood his goals, yet he issued what amounted to an ultimatum: Mr. Hogg was “more than free” to fund primary challenges, just not as an officer of the D.N.C.Mr. Martin made his comments on a call with reporters announcing plans to expand grants to the party’s operations in red states.At a private meeting last month, all of the committee’s officers — except Mr. Hogg — signed a pledge promising to remain neutral in primary races.Mr. Hogg has done a blitz in the news media, appearing on cable shows to make his case after The New York Times first reported his plans, which he stipulated would be limited to races for safe Democratic seats. Mr. Hogg said his goal was to elect a younger generation of Democrats and replace older incumbents he saw as less effective. Still, as he faced blowback on Capitol Hill, his group donated $100,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and the president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, said Mr. Martin would introduce a series of previously planned party changes that would include putting neutrality in the bylaws — meaning Mr. Hogg could not serve in his position if he were still pursuing his plan.The package will go before the party’s membership in August, she said.Ms. Kleeb said the importance of party neutrality was made clear during the divisive 2016 primary race between Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, when party leaders supported Mrs. Clinton.“David got elected to be a D.N.C. officer,” Ms. Kleeb said of Mr. Hogg’s vice-chair post. “He did not get elected to primary Democrats.”Ms. Kleeb said she had spoken with Mr. Hogg privately and told him that he could remain a part of D.N.C. leadership if he walled himself off from his outside group’s endorsement decisions, as some union leaders have done.”He can’t have both,” she said. “He has to make a decision.”Mr. Hogg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Retirement: Blessings and Challenges

      by

      Readers respond to an article about staying mentally sharp in retirement.To the Editor:Re “Staying Sharp After Retiring Is Its Own Job” (front page, March 28):It’s not surprising to me that research has found that retirement can lead to an increase in depression and cognitive decline. When I retired from teaching, emptying my office and sorting through 50 years of class notes felt more like grieving than celebrating, even as people backslapped me with “Congratulations on your retirement!”This newspaper’s daily obituaries of accomplished people convinces me how much work matters in our lives; so many profile the extraordinarily long lives of people who worked with passion well into old age.While retirement has its blessings, like not worrying about trivial work-related problems that keep you up at night, something tells me that if you love what you do, it’s not a bad idea to stick with it.Cathy BernardNew YorkTo the Editor:Entering my eighth year of retirement, having left work at the relatively young age of 60, I can state that it’s challenging to stay sharp mentally, but easily done if so desired.First off, a number of my fellow retiree travelers, exhausted mentally from challenging work roles, often seek purposely to retreat. For them, constant golf, tennis and the like are just fine.But the bulk of retired folks I know pretty much follow advice that I received before retirement, which was to set one’s retirement life into three phases — the “go go,” “go slow” and “no go” years — and act accordingly.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

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Can Adults Develop Seasonal Allergies? Symptoms and Treatments, Explained

      by

      After sidestepping symptoms for years, the sneezing and runny nose can come for you. Here’s why.After decades of never experiencing seasonal allergies, you suddenly find yourself sneezing and sniffling along with the tens of millions of Americans who suffer from them. What happened?“People tend to think of allergies as a childhood thing” and not something they can get later in life, said Dr. Tolly Epstein, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine who researches allergies and immunology. But “it’s very common to develop new allergies,” especially in your 20s, 30s and 40s, she said. And the symptoms aren’t always obvious.Most people with seasonal allergies will have sneezing, itchy eyes or nasal congestion. But those can also be accompanied by fatigue, a headache or sinus pressure — which, if you’ve never faced allergies before, you might mistake as cold symptoms, Dr. Epstein said.If you’ve recently developed a pollen allergy, you might also experience itching in your mouth after eating certain raw fruits and vegetables, said Dr. Andrew Rorie, an assistant professor in the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. That’s because the immune system sometimes confuses proteins in the plants for pollen proteins, he said.What causes seasonal allergies to develop?Seasonal allergies are reactions to environmental elements like pollen or mold spores that tend to swirl around in the air during certain times — such as in the spring, when plants pollinate. When you’re allergic to something like pollen, your immune system perceives it as a threat and triggers a chain reaction at the point of exposure. Antibodies in the nose or lungs stimulate the release of chemicals like histamine, which can lead to the sneezing, runny nose or congestion.Scientists aren’t exactly sure why you can develop new allergies or symptoms without ever having had them before, but there are several potential causes. For one, climate change is causing allergy season to start earlier and last longer, so it makes people more prone to developing symptoms, experts said.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      For Some Fans, Demi Moore’s Upset Loss for Best Actress Stung

      by

      Moore had been considered a favorite for her strong performance in “The Substance,” but lost to Mikey Madison of “Anora.”Demi Moore snagged statuettes all through the awards season for her dynamic performance in “The Substance,” a film about the indignities women past 50 face in Hollywood. She was favored by many to win the Oscar for best actress.But when the envelope was opened on Sunday night Moore, 62, was passed over in favor of Mikey Madison, 25, who pulled an upset and won the best actress trophy for playing a sex worker in the film “Anora.”While Madison’s performance was widely praised, her unexpected victory left many admirers of Moore puzzled and angry as it kept her from a perfect ending to her career comeback.One disappointed fan on social media said that each of Moore’s acceptance speeches this awards season had been “amazing” and that she would have loved to hear another from her at the Oscars. “Her performance was truly one of a kind, and I’m so happy both she and the film made it this far,” the supporter said. “Just wish she could’ve won.”On a subreddit dedicated to Moore’s upset, some fans suggested that her loss underscored one of the central themes of the film: the challenges older actresses face in a Hollywood that is obsessed with young women.One commenter noted that the academy had been observed in the past to “like young women and old men.” Another lamented: “Literally pouring all that brilliance on screen only for the younger actress who benefited from sex appeal and social hype to take that prestigious of an award from her.” Others pointed out that since “The Substance” was a body horror film, Moore had faced an uphill climb to win a best actress Oscar.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

    • 38 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Barstool Conservatism, Revisited

      by

      Despite Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election, his political coalition was already expanding in consequential ways. Not only did he make notable gains among Hispanic and African-American voters — gains that only increased this year — but he also attracted the support of a loose grouping of mostly young, male voters whom I described around that time as “Barstool conservatives.” This year, as I had predicted, they appeared to swing hard for Mr. Trump.“Barstool conservatism” was a reference to the media company Barstool Sports and its founder, Dave Portnoy, who became a folk hero of sorts in 2020 after raising millions of dollars on behalf of bars and restaurants whose existence had been threatened by Covid lockdowns. Apart from Mr. Portnoy, Barstool conservatism’s most representative figures today are the podcast host Joe Rogan, the retired N.F.L. punter turned ESPN personality Pat McAfee and various mixed martial arts fighters.Barstool conservatism is libertarian in the sense that it values autonomy and ambition but not doctrinaire about it in a way that would be recognizable to, say, the editors of Reason magazine. It is a world of fantasy football podcasts, betting apps, diet trends (keto, paleo, carnivore) and more nebulous “lifestyle” questions about the nuances of alcohol and cannabis use. The outlook is culturally rather than socially conservative, skeptical of racial and gender politics for reasons that have more to do with the stridency of their proponents than with any deep-seated convictions about the issues themselves.As a social conservative with an antipathy to libertarianism in all its forms, I viewed the rise of Barstool conservatism in 2020 with foreboding. And rightly so. This year Mr. Trump ran what was, in effect, a pro-choice campaign. He signaled support for legalized cannabis but not for a traditional conception of marriage. He may have selected JD Vance as his running mate, but otherwise he took social conservatives for granted. Barstool conservatives had the upper hand throughout the campaign, as underscored by the emphasis Mr. Trump’s team placed on Mr. Rogan’s endorsement.I have long been inclined to make certain hard and fast distinctions between Barstool conservatism and Trumpism of the sort that Mr. Vance represents, which I associate with opposition to abortion, pornography and cannabis, and support for traditional families, shoring up the power of organized labor and protecting religious freedom. In theory these two conservative tendencies are diametrically opposed. Until recently I would have suggested that only Mr. Trump could possibly unite them, by sheer force of personality.But since this year’s election I have been on an informal listening tour of young men in the part of rural Michigan where I live, which is a nice way of saying that I have spent a lot of time talking to people in bars. What I heard from mechanics, waiters, high school teachers and others often surprised me. The future of American conservatism now strikes me as more complex and less ideologically predictable — and less dependent on Mr. Trump — than I had thought.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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Cuatro de los comentarios más dispersos de Trump esta semana

      by

      El expresidente dice que le gusta tejer una trama al saltar de un tema a otro. Pero hay quienes ven algo más preocupante en sus divagaciones.Uno de los principios del mundo Trump es que ser considerado aburrido es un pecado más mortal que estar equivocado.En campaña, el expresidente Donald Trump a menudo lo interpreta como que debe salirse del guion y desviarse del mensaje. Sus críticos dicen que esos desvíos son una señal preocupante de su incoherencia y plantean dudas sobre su edad y su salud cognitiva. Muchos de sus partidarios y aliados consideran que su forma circular de hablar, que él llama “la trama”, es entretenida y no alarmante. El debate partidista sobre las implicaciones del discurso serpenteante de Trump solo se ha intensificado en la fase final de la contienda.Aquí cuatro ejemplos de las divagaciones de Trump en esta última semana.Niños en edad escolar le preguntaron por los héroes de su infancia. Él terminó hablando del muro fronterizoEra una pregunta suave, de un niño de 10 años. La respuesta de Trump fue más bien un tiro sin rumbo.Un grupo de niños hizo preguntas a Trump el viernes en Fox & Friends. Cuando le pidieron que nombrara a su presidente favorito cuando era niño, Trump citó primero a quien había sido elegido cuando él tenía 34 años (Ronald Reagan). Luego se aventuró en terrenos sorprendentes, incluido el tema favorito de todos los niños, el acuerdo comercial revisado del TLCAN, conocido como el Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Estados Unidos, México y Canadá.DANIEL: Presidente Trump, soy Daniel. Y tengo 10 años. Y soy de Tennessee. ¿Cuál era su presidente favorito cuando era pequeño?DONALD TRUMP: Me gustaba Ronald Reagan. Pensaba que era… mira… no me encantaba su política comercial. Yo soy muy bueno en comercio, he hecho grandes acuerdos comerciales para nosotros, e, TLCAN. Ese no era su punto fuerte, pero Ronald Reagan tenía una gran dignidad. Podías decir: “Ahí está nuestro presidente”, más que cualquiera de los otros. Realmente, cualquiera de los otros. Los grandes presidentes… bueno, Lincoln fue probablemente un gran presidente. Aunque siempre he dicho, ¿por qué no se resolvió? ¿Sabes? Soy un tipo que… no tiene sentido que tuviéramos una guerra civil.BRIAN KILMEADE, copresentador de Fox & Friends: Bueno, la mitad del país se fue antes de que él llegara.TRUMP: Sí, sí. Pero casi dirías, como, ¿por qué no fue eso —como ejemplo, lo de Ucrania nunca habría sucedido y Rusia si yo fuera presidente. Israel nunca habría ocurrido. El 7 de octubre nunca habría ocurrido. Como sabes, Irán estaba en bancarrota, querían hacer un trato. Les dije: “Nadie compra petróleo a Irán, están, están acabados, ya saben, no pueden hacer tratos con Estados Unidos”. Nadie compraba petróleo a Irán. Vinieron, querían hacer un trato y ahora tienen 300.000 millones de dólares en efectivo. Biden ha estado —y ella, ella es, no sé si estuvo involucrada en ello, pero ella es, ella es terrible. Oye, mira, recuerda esto, ella era la zarina de la frontera, nunca fue allí.Era la zarina de la frontera y la Patrulla Fronteriza, lo único que tienes que recordar, es que la Patrulla Fronteriza dio el respaldo más fuerte que nadie haya visto jamás: él es el mejor que hay y que nunca ha habido —es el mejor presidente, el mejor en la frontera, y ella es terrible. Esa era su política. Y estos tipos son geniales, por cierto. Son geniales— los conoces bien del programa. Tenemos el mejor respaldo y eso realmente lo dice todo. Y creo que la frontera es más importante que la inflación y la economía.Ya sabes, veo tus encuestas donde dicen que la economía y la inflación son lo primero y lo segundo. Y luego dicen —siempre dicen, como lo tercero— creo que la frontera es lo más importante. Fui elegido en 2016 por la frontera. Hice un gran trabajo. Ni siquiera pude mencionarlo después porque a nadie le importaba porque lo hice —se arregló. Teníamos una gran frontera. Luego la echaron a perder y tengo que volver a hacerlo. La diferencia es que esta vez es mucho peor. Porque están dejando entrar en el país a millones de personas que no deberían estar aquí.LAWRENCE JONES, copresentador de Fox & Friends: presidente, tenemos una divertida…TRUMP: pero lo arreglaremos.JONES: tenemos a un niño de 6 años de Massachusetts y quiere saber cuál es tu animal favorito.Cuando se le preguntó por la inflación, se refirió a su enfado con la experiencia universitaria de Alexandria Ocasio-CortezEl martes, John Micklethwait, editor en jefe de Bloomberg News, preguntó a Trump sobre el dólar y si sus políticas harían subir la inflación. Trump produjo una novela verbal, cuyo primer capítulo se refería más a los estudios universitarios de la representante Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez que a la macroeconomía.Trump con el editor en jefe de Bloomberg, John Micklethwait, durante una entrevista en Chicago el martes. Jim Vondruska para The New York TimesTRUMP: Sí, tuve cuatro años sin inflación. Tuve cuatro años sin inflación. Tuve cuatro años. Es mejor que eso. Y Biden, quien no tiene ni idea de dónde demonios está, ¿ok? Biden estuvo dos años sin inflación porque lo heredó de mí. Y entonces empezaron a gastar dinero como marineros borrachos. Gastaron tanto dinero. Era tan ridículo el dinero que gastaban. Estaban gastando en la Nueva Estafa Verde, una Nueva Estafa Verde, el Nuevo Trato Verde. Lo concibió AOC, más tres. Ni siquiera estudió medio ambiente en la universidad. Fue a una buena universidad. Salió. Simplemente dijo: la Nueva Estafa Verde. Se limitó a nombrar todas estas cosas.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Four of Trump’s Most Meandering Remarks This Week

      by

      One of the truisms of Trump World is that being viewed as boring is a sin more deadly than being wrong.On the campaign trail, former President Donald J. Trump often takes that to mean he must go off-script and veer off message. His critics say such detours are a troubling sign of his incoherence and raise questions about his age and cognitive health. Many of his supporters and allies see his circular way of speaking, which he calls “the weave,” as entertaining and not alarming. The partisan debate over the implications of Mr. Trump’s meandering speech has only intensified in the final stage of the race.Here are four examples of Mr. Trump’s rambling from just this past week.Schoolchildren asked him about boyhood heroes. He ended up at the border wall.It was a softball question, from a 10-year-old. Mr. Trump’s response was more of a knuckleball.A group of children asked Mr. Trump questions on Friday on “Fox & Friends.” Asked to name his favorite president when he was a child, Mr. Trump at first cited one who was elected when he was 34 (Ronald Reagan). Then he ventured onto surprising terrain, including every child’s favorite subject, the revised NAFTA trade deal known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.DANIEL: President Trump, I’m Daniel. And I’m 10. And I’m from Tennessee. What was your favorite president when you were little?DONALD TRUMP: So I liked Ronald Reagan. I thought he was, um, look — I did not love his trade policy. I’m a very good trade — I have made some great trade deals for us — the U.S.M.C.A. That wasn’t his strength, but he had a great dignity about him, Ronald Reagan. You could say, “There’s our president,” more than any of the others. Really, any of the others. Uh, great presidents — well, Lincoln was probably a great president. Although I’ve always said, why wasn’t that settled? You know? I’m a guy that — it doesn’t make sense we had a civil war.BRIAN KILMEADE, “Fox & Friends” co-host: Well, half the country left before he got there.TRUMP: Yeah, yeah. But you’d almost say, like, why wasn’t that — as an example, Ukraine would have never happened and Russia if I were president. Israel would have never happened. Oct. 7 would have never happened. As you know, Iran was broke, they wanted to make a deal. I told, “Anybody buys any oil from Iran, it’s, you’re, you’re finished, you know, you can’t deal with the United States.” Nobody was buying oil from Iran. They came, they wanted to make a deal — now they have $300 billion in cash. Biden has been — and her, she’s, I don’t know if she was involved in it, but she’s, she’s terrible. Hey, look, remember this, she was the border czar, she never went there.She was border czar and the Border Patrol, the one thing you have to remember, the Border Patrol gave strongest endorsement that anybody has ever seen: He’s the best there is, there has never been — he’s the greatest president, the greatest at the border, and she’s terrible. That was their policy. And these guys are great, by the way. These are great — you know them well from the show. We got the best endorsement and that really says it all. And I think the border is the bigger thing than inflation and the economy.You know, I watch your polling where it says the economy and inflation are No. 1, 2. And then it says — always says, like, the three — I think the border is bigger. I got elected in 2016 on the border. I did a great job. I couldn’t even mention it after that because nobody cared because I did — it was fixed. We had a great border. Then they blew it, and I have to do it again. The difference is, it’s much worse this time. Because they are allowing millions of people into the country that shouldn’t be here.LAWRENCE JONES, “Fox & Friends” co-host: Mr. President, we’ve got a fun one —TRUMP: But we’ll fix it.JONES: We’ve got a 6-year-old from Massachusetts and he wants to know about your favorite animal.Asked about inflation, he roamed to his annoyance with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s college experience.On Tuesday, John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, asked Mr. Trump about the dollar and whether his policies would drive up inflation. Mr. Trump produced a verbal novel, the first chapter of which touched more on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s undergraduate studies than on macroeconomics.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

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Have We Reached Peak Human Life Span?

      by

      After decades of rising life expectancy, the increases appear to be slowing. A new study calls into question how long even the healthiest of populations can live.The oldest human on record, Jeanne Calment of France, lived to the age of 122. What are the odds that the rest of us get there, too?Not high, barring a transformative medical breakthrough, according to research published Monday in the journal Nature Aging.The study looked at data on life expectancy at birth collected between 1990 and 2019 from some of the places where people typically live the longest: Australia, France, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Data from the United States was also included, though the country’s life expectancy is lower.The researchers found that while average life expectancies increased during that time in all of the locations, the rates at which they rose slowed down. The one exception was Hong Kong, where life expectancy did not decelerate.The data suggests that after decades of life expectancy marching upward thanks to medical and technological advancements, humans could be closing in on the limits of what’s possible for average life span.“We’re basically suggesting that as long as we live now is about as long as we’re going to live,” said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Chicago at Illinois, who led the study. He predicted maximum life expectancy will end up around 87 years — approximately 84 for men, and 90 for women — an average age that several countries are already close to achieving.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