Age, Chronological

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares87 Views

    Have Millennials Finally Figured Out How to Topple Boomer Bosses?

    by

    It was a night when thousands of 20-somethings were glued to their laptop screens for a battle whose stakes were both immediate and metaphorical, a contest between experience and youth, veteran versus vitality. Mike Tyson, a decorated, tested legend of boxing, was taking on Jake Paul. Mr. Paul, decades younger and with fewer fights under his belt, radiated energy, but his reputation was based more on social media videos than prowess in the ring. The newcomer triumphed.Of course, in sports the advantages of being the scrappy, enthusiastic upstart in a fight with an old hand are obvious. There’s an energy that’s visible in quick leaps, fast punches, unflagging endurance. The same may be true in math, music or the arts. In politics, though, the fresh face is often written off. The median age of a U.S. senator is the age at which many American retire. The last two presidents were born before the invention of the transistor radio and the hula hoop.But some political contests force voters to laser in on whether all that grizzled experience is really what they want.New York’s Democratic mayoral primary on Tuesday was one of those. The competition between the two front-runners, Zohran Mamdani, 33, and former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, 67, played out not just on the plane of policy but also on the plane of experience versus enthusiasm: Did New Yorkers want a mayor who was relatively new to local politics, or someone whose record, scandals and all, was basically tattooed on the city’s brain? If New York is “a city for only the very young,” its politics don’t often seem so, shuffling well-known names around seats of power like musical chairs. What’s the value, some watching the mayor’s race wondered, in someone totally new?That question feels urgent on a national level, too, not long after a presidential campaign that featured a septuagenarian and an octogenarian, and weeks after the exodus of a lightning rod Zoomer from the Democratic National Committee.The dichotomy of wizened experience versus fresh-faced enthusiasm has played out many times in the business world, too — in corporate boardrooms, where silver-haired executives debated their firm’s succession; on startup teams, where founders scratched their heads over whether to bring in veterans or workers with fresh ideas.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      My Father Was a Nazi Hunter. Then He Died in the Lockerbie Bombing.

      by

      On an early summer day in 1986 in a federal building in Newark, my father, Michael Bernstein, sat across a conference table from an elderly man named Stefan Leili. Then a young prosecutor at the Department of Justice, my father spent the previous day and a half deposing Leili, who emigrated to the United States from Germany three decades earlier. While applying for an entry visa, the U.S. government claimed, Leili concealed his service in the Totenkopfverbände — the infamous Death’s Head units of the SS, which ran the Nazi concentration and extermination camps. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that such an omission was sufficient grounds for denaturalization and deportation. If my father could prove that Leili lied, the United States could strip him of his citizenship and kick him out of the country.Listen to this article, read by Robert PetkoffIn an earlier interview, Leili repeatedly denied guarding prisoners at Mauthausen, one of a cluster of work camps in Austria, notorious for a stone quarry where slave laborers spent 11-hour days hauling slabs of granite up a steep rock staircase. But my father and a colleague sensed that this time around, the weight of hundreds of detailed queries might finally be causing Leili to buckle. Leili had begun to concede, bit by grudging bit, that he was more involved than he first said. My father had been waiting for such a moment, because he had a piece of evidence he was holding back. Now he decided that it was finally time to use it.Leili sat next to his college-age granddaughter and a German interpreter. Earlier in the deposition, the young woman said her grandfather was a sweet man, who couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong. Indeed, it would have been hard to look at this unremarkable 77-year-old — bald, with a sagging paunch — and perceive a villain.Certainly, the story Leili first told my father was far from villainous. Born in a small town in 1909 in Austria-Hungary, present-day Romania, Leili was an ethnic German peasant, who like millions of others had been tossed from place to place by the forces convulsing Europe. In 1944, Leili said, the Red Army was advancing toward his village. He had to choose whether to join the Hungarian Army or, like many ethnic Germans from his region, the SS. The Schutzstaffel promised better pay and German citizenship, plus money for his family if he was killed. And besides, if he hadn’t gone along with what the SS wanted, Leili said, he would “have been put against the wall and shot.”Leili told my father he spent much of his time in the SS pretending to be ill so he wouldn’t have to serve. Then he guarded some prisoners working in a Daimler munitions factory. These were soldiers, not civilians. They had friendly relations, he told my father. They worked short days. They were well fed, even “plump.”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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Many Meanings of ‘True’ Religion

      by

      More from our inbox:Stop the ElderspeakReligious believers have a renewed power in Washington. Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Religion’s Role, Revisited,” by Lauren Jackson (Sunday Styles, April 20):About a third of the way into this essay, I realized that the author was on the wrong track. Religion is not about the individual but about the community.The Torah begins not with the creation of an individual but of an ecosystem within which individuals can thrive. And all major religions, in both scripture and practice, emphasize the importance of a common community.Because the author focuses so intently on our national illness of narcissism, she misses the simple answer to her question: Religion is to be found in the people next door, the ones in need down the block and across the sea, the ones who need just laws and an end to violence. To be authentic, religion needs to be not about “me” but “us”; it needs to make us better neighbors, better lawmakers, better lovers and better at self-reflection.Alexander M. JacobsMilwaukeeTo the Editor:I’ve long noted the unsettling contradiction between people who extol the community they find in their religious lives and their need to judge and stereotype those outside their community.Lauren Jackson first lost me at “elite liberals,” a reductive term that dismisses humanity’s rich and complex experiences, beliefs, family influences, education and ethical framework. Further, as someone who has lived in or adjacent to large cities my entire life, I’m deeply skeptical of her claim that “many said they left religion because they moved to places like major cities, where people were more hostile to it.” This makes me wonder about the demographics of her self-selected survey respondents.I, along with my family and friends, have always been able to access and participate in warm faith communities. The “hostility” I can think of has been in cases where Americans’ professed religious beliefs have impinged on other Americans’ rights, beliefs and welfare.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      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

    • 163 Shares199 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