Divorce, Separations and Annulments

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Climate Change Skeptic’s Change of Heart

      by

      More from our inbox:How to Help the Homeless in Los AngelesDemocratic Wishes That Came True, Alas!Divorce and Politics Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Yes, Greenland’s Ice Is Melting, But … ,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 30):Mr. Stephens’s piece is right on point — had it been written 20 years ago. Regrettably the environment did not wait for him or others “to be brought around” about “the need for action.” Rather, with scientific consensus building around an expected rise of two to three degrees Celsius by 2100, the partial solutions Mr. Stephens champions will leave us facing extreme climate impacts.Better that we adopt a more radical approach in the hope that we can stem the coming tide. Indeed, as Mr. Stephens suggests, we should focus on fixing the environment for our great-grandchildren, and need to consider family planning policies that reduce the size of future generations to help achieve a better balance between humanity and nature.Scott MortmanManalapan, N.J.The writer is an environmental lawyer and an adviser to the Fair Start Movement, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing child welfare and family planning.To the Editor:Bret Stephens wisely recommends that a lack of self-righteousness and an open mind would do a lot to advance public thinking about climate change, using his own evolution on the subject as Exhibit A. However, his fears about government playing a big role in addressing rising temperatures ignores some important recent history.Mr. Stephens points out that nuclear power will have to play a role in a less carbon-intensive future but fails to mention that its very existence was brought about by a massive program of government-funded and -directed research and development. He also points out that cheap natural gas produced by fracking has helped reduce our carbon footprint, and ignores the fact that both public and private funding played an important role in funding the research and development for that technology.And, perhaps most significant, he doesn’t mention the pivotal role played by German and Chinese government subsidies in driving down the price of solar panels by bringing their production up to scale.Fighting climate change is a very complex matter and will require carefully intertwining public and private initiatives. To see the marketplace as the sole possible agent of change fails to acknowledge how progress has occurred.Joshua MarkelPhiladelphiaTo the Editor:Letting market forces drive the consumption of goods and services might work for much of our economy, but it clearly hasn’t worked when it comes to protecting the health and well-being of our planet and its inhabitants from global warming. It takes too long.In 1888, the first U.S. wind turbine produced electricity. In 1900, more than a third of vehicles on our roads were electric. In 1954, Bell Labs developed solar energy. American clean energy science and innovation were there all along, but the oil and gas lobby was a powerful headwind to its usage.Our government needs to push against the destructive effects of global warming. We are running out of time.Fred EganYork Harbor, MaineTo the Editor:For the better part of 10 years, I have tried to convince my father of the seriousness of climate change and, for the most part, those conversations have not been fruitful. But after sending Bret Stephens’s article to him, we had a very thoughtful discussion about the importance of addressing it.I appreciate Mr. Stephens’s vulnerability and willingness to admit that his views have changed as he has learned more. In doing so, he gives conservatives an avenue not just to engage with the issue, but potentially to lead.I would like to hear more from Mr. Stephens about how climate activists could be more persuasive to climate skeptics. As he pointed out, climate change should not be just a left-of-center concern. We must be able to persuade everyone that we need to address global warming.Brendan HastingsChicagoHow to Help the Homeless in Los AngelesA homeless encampment adjacent to a parking lot in Venice, Calif., that has been designated for an affordable housing development.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Way Los Angeles Is Trying to Solve Homelessness Is ‘Absolutely Insane,’” by Ezra Klein (column, nytimes.com, Oct. 23):Mr. Klein is absolutely right: It is insane to try to solve Los Angeles’s housing crisis without a radically innovative approach. Fortunately, Los Angeles voters will be able to vote for one on the same ballot as their new mayor. Measure ULA would raise more than $900 million annually to prevent homelessness and create housing. It replaces politics as usual with the urgency and innovation we need.Written by housing providers and homelessness experts, Measure ULA dedicates 70 percent of revenues to affordable housing, the majority to support fast-moving, less expensive and other kinds of affordable housing that Mr. Klein wants to see.Sophisticated construction methods can bring down housing costs, as can the purchase of existing apartments and hotels for long-term housing. The measure also encourages community land trusts, single-family homes, residential hotels, accessory dwelling units and cooperative living models.Prevention is by far the cheapest solution to homelessness, and Measure ULA also funds rental assistance and legal services for tenants facing eviction.L.A.’s housing and homelessness crises are persistent and challenging, but they are not insoluble. Measure ULA attacks the problems at the root, and that is why it is the best hope in a generation for making meaningful progress toward housing every Angeleno with dignity.Stephanie Klasky-GamerNorth Hollywood, Calif.The writer is the president and C.E.O. of LA Family Housing, an affordable housing developer and homeless services provider.Democratic Wishes That Came True, Alas! Nicole Craine for The New York TimesTo the Editor:I remember that back during the primary season the Democrats were not only wishing that extreme Republican candidates would win, but in some cases they were actually helping them get the nomination because “they would be so easy to defeat!” At the time that practice seemed ill advised and downright insane.And sure enough, now there are extreme, election-denying Republican candidates poised to win office around the country. What the Democrats failed to recognize is that during the general election campaign, fringe candidates gain legitimacy.In the primary they’re the loony among several candidates who usually split the vote. Then the extremist voters coalesce around the extreme candidate and, presto chango, they’re the legitimate Republican nominee. Then established Republicans, for fear of any Democrat ever winning anything, endorse the extremist.The Democrats should have been more mindful of that old saw “Be careful what you wish for”!Ozzie SattlerPhoenixDivorce and PoliticsTo the Editor:As a man who has experienced the slow deterioration that leads to a divorce, I have wondered why I didn’t do more to stop the process. I think the answer is that my pride allowed many small irritations, over many years, to fester and grow past a breaking point. Once that happens, reason leaves, anger replaces it and the end point becomes almost inevitable.The political situation we are now in, as a country, feels very much like the downward spiral that ends in a divorce. Things that, at one time, could and needed to be discussed and debated to reach compromise have become weapons to attack the other side. Anger and hate grow, and it seems that the breaking point is in sight.But, unlike a divorce, we can’t just split the assets and go our separate ways, keeping the tears and pain within the family and friends. And whatever the outcome, there will be no do-overs when we look back. So I pray that we come to our senses and realize the incredible risks we are taking by letting pride and anger replace patriotism and respect for all.Mike WroblewskiAtlanta More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Get Indicted for Jan. 6?

      by

      More from our inbox:The Russia-Iran AllianceAn Unreal Foreign PolicyWhen I Realized That ‘Youth Is a Members-Only Club’A Good Divorce Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Has Told Americans Exactly Who He Is,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, Oct. 15):I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Wegman’s essay on Donald Trump and his blatant misdeeds, as so masterfully presented by the Jan. 6 committee. But we are approaching two years from Jan. 6 and there are still no indictments resulting from clear evidence of overwhelming criminal conduct by Mr. Trump.The mantra that no one is above the law rings hollow, as any normal person engaging in such Trumpian conduct would be wearing an orange suit by now. What more does the Justice Department or the Georgia prosecutor possibly need to take the action the evidence so clearly demands?I thought that when New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, filed a complaint accusing Donald Trump and his business of fraud that it would give courage to weak-kneed prosecutors to follow suit. Yet we wait and doubt whether the Teflon man will ever be brought to justice. Without such action, future leaders will feel no risk in taking actions that could destroy our democracy.We need indictments and justice, and we need them now!Richard GoetzDelray Beach, Fla.To the Editor:Jesse Wegman is correct to say that the Republican Party “is now infected from coast to coast with proudly ignorant conspiracymongers, wild-eyed election deniers and gun-toting maniacs.”About half of Americans are willing to allow that party to return to power. That half includes not just the unreachable Trump base but also millions of Americans who know that President Biden won the election, are probably opposed to political violence and likely support representative democracy. It is these Americans, who are not deep into delusions, lies and conspiracies, but nonetheless willing to hand power to a Republican Party that is, who currently pose the greatest threat to American democracy.Richard SeagerNew YorkTo the Editor:“Trump Has Told Americans Exactly Who He Is” is true today and has been true ever since he was first a candidate in the 2016 election. He has never shown, or aspired to be, more than what he has shown us right from the start. Sadly, many who follow him think this is fine, and perhaps the Jan. 6 committee’s report illuminating his actions may change some minds. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.As the very wise Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” I did, and I haven’t changed my mind.Cathy PutnamConcord, Mass.The Russia-Iran AllianceA drone believed to be Iranian-made nearing its target in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Monday.Yasuyoshi Chiba/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Deadly Message Sent by Drones: It’s Russia and Iran vs. the West” (front page, Oct. 18):Reprising the alliance that killed tens of thousands of noncombatants in Syria, Iran is now supplying Russia with drones used to attack Ukrainian cities and murder their inhabitants. The collaboration between these two vile dictatorships is based only on a mutual contempt for human life, abhorrence of freedom and hatred of the United States.What will it take for the Biden administration to break off its efforts to revive President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, which would only delay, not prevent, the Islamic Republic’s emergence as a nuclear-armed power?Howard F. JaeckelNew YorkAn Unreal Foreign Policy Jhonn Zerpa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:In “The U.S. Cannot Uphold the Fiction That Juan Guaidó Is the President of Venezuela,” (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Oct. 8), William Neuman makes a blunt, but accurate, observation about U.S. policy in Venezuela: It’s incoherent and frankly detached from reality.But Venezuela is hardly an anomaly. U.S. foreign policy is often stuck in an immovable vortex, with inertia and an unwillingness to admit failure the defining features. The foreign policy establishment is either incapable of adapting to situations or is too confident of its ability to will things into existence.While it doesn’t hurt to be ambitious, it also doesn’t hurt to understand the limits of your power. The U.S. remains the most powerful nation in the world, with boundless economic potential and a military second to none, but other countries have independent agency, their own core interests and the resiliency to ensure that those interests are protected.The result is a wide divergence between the grand objectives the U.S. hopes to accomplish and the reality the U.S. operates in. Thus, we see Nicolás Maduro still running Venezuela, Bashar al-Assad sitting comfortably in the presidential palace in Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea the leader of a nuclear-weapons state.Instead of seeking to transform the world to its liking, a mountainous undertaking if there ever was one, the U.S. should work within the world that exists. Otherwise, failure is all but assured.Daniel R. DePetrisNew Rochelle, N.Y.The writer is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank based in Washington.When I Realized That ‘Youth Is a Members-Only Club’ Irving Browning/New-York Historical Society, via Bridgeman ImagesTo the Editor:Pamela Paul’s delightful Oct. 20 column, “Wait, Who Did You Say Is Middle-Aged?,” made me remember the afternoon I drove my two sons — teenagers then — home from school. A song blending Southern and garage rock was playing on the radio.“Mom, bet you don’t know who’s singing,” they dared.“That’s easy,” I said. “It’s Kings of Leon.”My older son gaped at his brother. “How could she know that?” Both were flummoxed, even offended, that I, a woman then in her 50s, got the answer right. Suddenly Kings of Leon, a band they followed, became uncool.I realized then and there that youth is a members-only club. And no amount of worldly knowledge — not even a gentle bribe of chocolate chip cookies, perhaps — could win me the price of admission.Reni RoxasEverett, Wash.A Good Divorce David HuangTo the Editor:Re “A Cure for the Existential Crisis of Married Motherhood,” by Amy Shearn (Sunday Opinion, Oct. 9):Ms. Shearn nails it in her tribute to happy divorced motherhood. The key to that freedom, I would assert, is a good divorce, meaning one that puts children first.It has been my mission since my own divorce 12 years ago to promote the concept of a good divorce, one that makes co-parenting the pinnacle of achievement for couples who must go through this difficult change.A good divorce means attending parent-teacher conferences with your ex, helping your child select a birthday gift for your ex-spouse, and relying on family and friends whenever possible to help ease the transition.My daughter, Grace, gave me the definition of a “good divorce” when she was only 8, saying, “A good divorce is when parents are nice to each other, like you and Daddy.”As Ms. Shearn acknowledges, some divorces are brutal, and for those parents a good divorce might not be realistic. For the rest of us, a good divorce is a goal divorced parents should aspire to, because it is an attainable outcome.Sarah ArmstrongSan FranciscoThe writer is vice president, global marketing operations, at Google and the author of “The Mom’s Guide to a Good Divorce: What to Think Through When Children Are Involved.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-Wife of Eric Greitens, Missouri Senate Candidate, Accuses Him of Abuse 

      by

      Sheena Greitens said in an affidavit that her former husband had physically abused both her and their young son. Mr. Greitens, a former governor of Missouri, denied the accusation.The former wife of Eric Greitens, a leading Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Missouri, has accused him of physically abusing her and one of their sons in a sworn affidavit that could have serious implications in the race for the seat of Senator Roy Blunt, who is retiring.Mr. Greitens, whose campaign denied the allegations on Monday, abruptly resigned as governor in 2018 amid a swirling scandal that involved a sexual relationship with his former hairdresser and allegations that he had taken an explicit photograph of her without her permission. He was also accused by prosecutors of misusing his charity’s donor list for political purposes.But until the latest revelation, his attempt at a political comeback had appeared improbably successful, despite efforts by Missouri’s Republican establishment to block it. Mr. Greitens, 47, a former Navy SEAL, had aligned squarely with former President Donald J. Trump, cheered on anti-vaccine and anti-mask protesters, and surged to the lead in a crowded Republican primary race for a key open Senate seat.He now faces fresh calls from his opponents to drop out, lest he turn a reliably red seat competitive in November.Representative Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, who is running against Mr. Greitens in the Republican primary and has garnered support from many top state officials, issued a statement accusing Mr. Greitens of “a pattern of criminal behavior that makes Eric unfit to hold any public office.”“He should drop out of the U.S. Senate race immediately,” she said. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who as the state’s attorney general in 2018 pressed Mr. Greitens to resign as governor, wrote on Twitter, “If you hit a woman or a child, you belong in handcuffs, not the United States Senate.”Part of a continuing child custody dispute, the sworn affidavit from Sheena Chestnut Greitens, 39, a professor of public policy at the University of Texas at Austin, accused Mr. Greitens of physical abuse and “unstable and coercive behavior.” The 41-page affidavit, filed on Monday in Boone County Circuit Court in Missouri, said that Mr. Greitens had become increasingly violent in 2018 as his sex scandal threatened to end a once-promising political rise that he hoped would take him to the White House.“Prior to our divorce, during an argument in late April 2018, Eric knocked me down and confiscated my cellphone, wallet and keys so that I was unable to call for help or extricate myself and our children from our home,” wrote Dr. Greitens, who has two young sons with Mr. Greitens and whose divorce from him became final in May 2020.She added that his “behavior included physical violence toward our children, such as cuffing our then-3-year-old son across the face at the dinner table in front of me and yanking him around by his hair.”In a statement on Monday, Mr. Greitens’s campaign denied the allegations and said that they were politically motivated. The statement said that Dr. Greitens was “engaged in a last-ditch attempt to vindictively destroy her ex-husband.” Mr. Greitens later issued a personal statement saying he would continue “fighting for the truth and against completely fabricated, baseless allegations.” A lawyer for Dr. Greitens did not respond to requests for comment on Monday about the affidavit, which was reported earlier by The Associated Press. Representative Billy Long of Missouri, another Republican candidate for the Senate seat, said on Monday that he was “shocked and appalled” by the affidavit, adding that Mr. Greitens was “clearly unfit to represent” their state in the Senate.Mr. Greitens’s lead in the polls has flummoxed other Republicans like Mr. Long, considering that the 2018 investigation of Mr. Greitens was led by Republicans and looming impeachment proceedings would have been carried out by the Republican-controlled legislature.In 2018, Mr. Greitens’s former hairdresser described an alarming sexual encounter in which, she said, he had taken a photo of her and threatened to share it if she told anyone about their affair. Around the same time, questions began to emerge about whether he had used the donor list of a veterans charity he founded to help his political campaign in 2016.In her affidavit, Dr. Greitens said her husband had bought a gun but refused to tell her where he had hidden it. She said he had threatened to kill himself “unless I provided specific public political support to him,” despite accusations of infidelity that she said he had admitted to, even as she said he threatened her with legal action if she revealed that confession.Mr. Greitens is one of several Republican candidates aligned with Mr. Trump who have drawn concerns from top party leaders in Washington, though the former president has yet to endorse anyone in the Missouri race. In November, Sean Parnell, a Trump-endorsed candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat being vacated by Patrick J. Toomey, a Republican, dropped out of that contest after a judge ruled in favor of his estranged wife in a custody fight that also involved allegations of abuse. In Ohio, a former Trump White House aide, Max Miller, challenged Representative Anthony Gonzalez after Mr. Gonzalez voted to impeach Mr. Trump, helping to push the incumbent into retirement. Mr. Miller is now suing an ex-girlfriend and former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, after she accused him of physical abuse.In December, another Trump-backed Senate candidate, the former professional football player Herschel Walker, who is running in Georgia, told Axios he was “accountable” for past violent behavior toward his former wife, Cindy Grossman. However, his campaign said he still denied accusations from two other women who said he had displayed threatening behavior toward them.Hannah Norton contributed reporting. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Talking to Voters From Both Parties

      by

      More from our inbox:The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  Mark Peterson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “What Voters Really Think About the State of America” (Opinion, Jan. 8):The most upsetting article I’ve read recently regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath is the report on the focus groups’ comments about the state of America. I was familiar with polls showing that a majority of Republican voters believe the lies told by Donald Trump and echoed by elected officials and television activists like Tucker Carlson.But it is distressing to read that six of the eight Republicans in the focus group still believe that Mr. Trump won the election. And it is mind-blowing to read their comments about “how the Democrats invaded the White House” and were pushing Covid to keep mail-in ballots.The lies must be refuted loudly and continuously. Responsible media should give no airtime or newspaper space to anyone who does not first admit that the 2020 election was fair and the results were properly counted. Until the rank and file learn that our election was fair and honest and worked as it should, the “state of America” will remain in jeopardy.Roy GoldmanJacksonville Beach, Fla.To the Editor:I am an independent voter, and have been in my 60 years of voting. I was not too surprised at the outcomes of your two focus groups. I have many friends and family who are registered Democrats or Republicans and know their opinions all too well. I would have been interested in a third group of independent voters. Maybe in the future you can incorporate this growing and important group of voters.Linda L. HortonAlbuquerqueEditors’ Note: Times Opinion plans to convene additional focus groups; the next will be with independent voters.To the Editor:I understand the purpose of your giving an opinion page over to average (whatever that means) Democrats and Republicans, but I nonetheless believe that The Times has missed the mark in doing so.The purpose of journalism is not to be evenhanded or to give equal size megaphones to “both sides.” The purpose of journalism is to tell the truth. Clearly one side is by and large telling the truth, whereas the other side appears quite delusional. And it’s telling that I don’t have to state which is which for people to know what I mean.The Times can and should do better for its readers.Jonathan EngelNew YorkTo the Editor:If these interviews are supposed to help me understand the thinking of Republicans, you’ve failed.Reading what they think just made me angry — again! How some of them came up with their responses is totally beyond me, except I know they have unquestioningly accepted lies. That is what is frustrating, to hear those lies repeated over and over without any attempt on their part to use critical thinking.My stomach is churning and I’m sure my blood pressure has peaked. I can live, just barely, with the horrible mess the world is in, but I don’t need any help with my despair!Sara JoslinNew Cumberland, Pa.The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses Jim Wilson/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Top Court Leans Toward Blocking Vaccine Mandate” (front page, Jan. 8):Certain Supreme Court justices appear skeptical regarding the constitutionality of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for certain businesses. We should remember, however, that the court is not ruling on the constitutionality of that mandate, only on whether it should issue an injunction to prevent its being enforced while its constitutionality is being decided.In making a decision on whether an injunction should be issued, the justices would naturally want to consider the harm of issuing an injunction versus the harm of not issuing an injunction.Suppose they decided not to issue an injunction. What’s the worst that might happen? Well, some people who may not want to be vaccinated may get the lifesaving vaccine anyway.And if they do issue the injunction? Well, some people who do not want to be vaccinated may die.Seems pretty clear-cut to me.Stephen PolitBelmont, Mass.To the Editor:Dear Chief Justice Roberts,I respect the principle that limits on decision-making by federal agencies can be necessary and protective. This principle would be a vital response to an overly authoritarian executive branch.I urge you to uphold this principle — while making an exception for vaccine mandates.To return this national health issue to individual states and Congress — at this time of medical crisis and excessive cultural divide — will further politicize and undermine our nation’s ability to respond to this public health issue in a unified manner.Principles are vitally important. But wise and flexible leadership requires appropriate exceptions.Jared D. KassConcord, Mass.‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  María MedemTo the Editor:Re “Divorce Doesn’t Have to Be Lonely,” by Kaitlyn Greenidge (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Jan. 9):A widow of nine years after five decades of marriage, I know that you can go it alone. Not everyone needs to marry. But I ask, What can marriage give us? As an introvert and a writer, I prized private time. Marriage required compromise and working out problems instead of walking out.We had counseling several times, at which I learned that my little ego was as precious as his. Only in a relationship could I have learned how best to live in our world of rugged individualists. I assert myself more confidently, but also listen better.Diana MorleyTalent, Ore. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Race for 2021 NYC Mayor Is Still Wide Open

      by

      [Want to get New York Today by email? Here’s the sign-up.]It’s Thursday. Weather: It’ll get close to 70 today. Foggy and overcast early, but sunny by midafternoon. Alternate-side parking: In effect until Sunday (Passover).Eduardo Munoz/ReutersThe primary for New York City’s mayoral race is less than three months away. But many Democrats say they are still undecided.A new poll from Fontas Advisors and Core Decision Analytics showed that 50 percent of likely Democratic voters were still unsure who is best to lead the city. My colleague Katie Glueck found that a crowded mayoral field and the challenges of campaigning amid a pandemic have left the race wide open.“There is no front-runner,” said George Fontas, the founder of Fontas Advisors. “We have no idea what’s going to happen in the next three months, and if history shows us anything, it’s that three months is an eternity in a New York City election.”[The poll found a clear front-runner: undecided.]The detailsOnly two candidates garnered double-digit support in the poll: Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, at 16 percent, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, at 10 percent.Coming in third, at 6 percent, was Maya D. Wiley, a former MSNBC analyst and ex-counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, got 5 percent, and Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citi executive, received 4 percent.Near the bottom, Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary; Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner; and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, tied at 2 percent.The contextVoters are facing multiple obstacles in choosing the next mayor. The pandemic disrupted many traditional campaigning routines. This is also the city’s first mayoral race using ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to express a preference for up to five candidates. As of Wednesday, there are 21 candidates to choose from.Gale A. Brewer, the Manhattan borough president, told Ms. Glueck, “When you have that many candidates, it’s hard to know what to do, and then, of course, ranked-choice voting.”The prospectAlthough the mayoral field is crowded, the poll suggests the pivotal moment will be just a few weeks before the June 22 primary. That’s been standard in the city’s previous mayoral races. Experts predict that the race will accelerate beginning in May, when a series of televised debates will kick off.One candidate leaves the fieldOn Wednesday, Carlos Menchaca, a City Council member from Brooklyn, announced his departure from the race after difficulty fund-raising and gaining traction. His platform included housing reform, police accountability and a targeted program for universal basic income. Mr. Menchaca also had hoped to become the city’s the first openly gay Latino mayor.From The TimesCuomo’s Family Is Said to Have Received Special Access to Virus TestsA Hospital Encounters Vaccine Hesitation Among Its Own StaffHousing Boss Who Was Accused of Sexual Abuse Now Faces Bribery ChargesCan You Autograph a Playbill Through Your Screen?Want more news? Check out our full coverage.The Mini Crossword: Here is today’s puzzle.What we’re readingA Tribeca apartment was found to be a crowded, mask-free illicit nightclub. [New York Post]After attacks on Asian-Americans, volunteers formed patrols in New York City. [Wall Street Journal]The Long Island Rail Road announced a new schedule after commuters complained about crowding. [WABC]And finally: Divorce rates are droppingThe Times’s Vincent M. Mallozzi writes:Divorces from coast to coast have slowed considerably in the last 12 months, according to lawyers, relationship coaches in New York and records kept by the Superior Court of California.“We had a surge in divorces in the early months of the pandemic, but now we seem to be seeing a plummeting,” said Harriet N. Cohen, a divorce lawyer who founded Cohen Stine Kapoor in Manhattan.Ms. Cohen rattled off some of the top reasons some couples got divorced during the pandemic era, or in any other era, such as boredom, financial difficulties, extramarital affairs and physical abuse. She also cited a few reasons couples “decided to stick it out at this particular time in our history.”“So many negative things are currently happening that people are afraid to change the status quo, and are staying married,” she said. “It’s not that they won’t divorce in the future, it’s just that people do not have their ordinary outlets right now, they don’t leave the house that much, they don’t go to the office to continue affairs if they are having one, and of course, getting divorced is very expensive.”Ken Jewell, another New York divorce lawyer, offered some free legal advice for anyone, anywhere, who is contemplating divorce at this point in the pandemic.“I would say wait until the weather’s warmer, wait until you get vaccinated and see what can be solved among yourselves, which will save you a lot of money in legal fees,” he said. “Try to avoid going to court, and if there are any remaining issues that can only be dealt with through lawyers, you’ll be able to handle those things on a much smarter, focused and inexpensive level.”It’s Thursday — consider your options.Metropolitan Diary: Blocked in Dear Diary:There was a time when, if you were patient, you could find unmetered parking spots on a few blocks in the West 50s within walking distance of the Theater District.During most daytime hours, these spots were restricted (“No Standing,” “No Parking” and so on). But they typically became available to anyone in the early evening, so I would try to time my arrival for then if I was going to a Broadway show or a restaurant in the area.Once, I found a spot that was ideal, parked my car and went about my business in the neighborhood. When I was ready to go home, I returned to my car, got in, started the engine and signaled my intention to pull out.Almost immediately, another vehicle appeared alongside mine and then pulled up a little past it, waiting for me to leave. Just then, a small truck pulled up behind, also ready to claim the spot once I abandoned it.Now I wasn’t going anywhere. The two vehicles had blocked me in.I rolled down my window and asked the drivers whether one of them would move so that I could pull out. Neither was willing, so I remained blocked in.Finally, I turned off my engine, got out of the car and took a walk around the block. When I got back, it was all clear and I was able to drive off.The city installed meters on the block shortly after that.— Frank P. TomasuloNew York Today is published weekdays around 6 a.m. Sign up here to get it by email. You can also find it at nytoday.com.What would you like to see more (or less) of? Email us: nytoday@nytimes.com. More