internal-sub-only-nl

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares79 Views

    A Guy I Know Had a Liver Transplant. Now He’s Boozing Again.

    by

    The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on how to support someone with an addiction problem.My significant other has a friend who is a longtime alcoholic, while also being intelligent, entertaining and conniving. For example, he used to tell his wife he was going to the gym and then head to the bar; before returning home, he’d dampen his clothes in the bathroom to make it seem as if he’d gotten a good sweat on. He was off the radar for a bit, and then we learned he had a liver transplant. After that, he had an episode of hepatic encephalopathy, a brain disorder caused by liver dysfunction. It seems the doctors knew he was still drinking but gave him the new liver anyway and counseled abstinence. A few parties later, he was sneaking vodka, gin and whatever else was around. He lies to everyone and has made his guy friends vow not to tell his wife about his drinking. They’ve made a meager attempt to confront him, only to be assured that he just fell off the wagon and would be good. Just don’t tell the wife!I’m appalled that they’re going along with this. There are a couple of ethical issues here. First, who should decide whether someone is entitled to a transplant? Some hospital systems deny a liver transplant to patients who continue to drink alcohol, and other hospitals don’t. Second, do the friends have an obligation to tell this man’s wife that he’s still drinking? She could insist he leave the house and go to rehab, in which case he might have a chance of living long enough to see his children get married. Some additional context: A friend of mine died waiting for a liver transplant. I am also the child of a lifelong alcoholic. — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:There’s more than one morally defensible way of allocating donor organs. In the United States, as in Western Europe, the system emphasizes equity and basically gives priority to patients with the greatest need. An approach that focused instead on efficiency — on getting the maximum use out of donated livers, as measured by ‘‘quality-adjusted life years’’ — might give an edge to people who were younger and otherwise healthier and might work against low-income and minority populations.Organ allocation in the United States is governed by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (O.P.T.N.), whose policies determine the order in which deceased-donor organs are offered; they do not, however, dictate medical practice. So it’s up to a medical center to decide whether or not transplant candidates with alcohol-related liver disease are to abstain from alcohol for some period — six months having long been a typical sobriety window. Some studies indicate that carefully selected patients who aren’t subject to a sobriety window can do just as well as those who are (though the data is hard to interpret because of the ‘‘carefully selected’’ part). And if your drinking has caused a severe case of acute hepatitis that doesn’t respond to medical treatment, you probably won’t survive a six-month waiting period. So the trend seems to be away from requiring an extended interval of abstinence.The point is that the current system for allocating this scarce resource is morally legitimate, whatever trade-offs it may entail; its architects are perfectly aware that many liver recipients will not succeed in refraining from heavy drinking afterward. The fact that this longtime alcoholic has returned to his old habits is distressing. It doesn’t mean that the system isn’t functioning the way it’s meant to.One thing that transplant centers may try to determine is whether patients with an alcohol problem have social networks that could help them stay sober. This brings us to your second question. This fellow’s friends weren’t looking after him when they agreed to uphold this boozy bro code and keep mum. He doesn’t want to die, but he’s drinking himself to death, which means that, at least in this key area, he lacks the capacity for rational decision-making. In a situation like that, it’s more important to attend to his interests than to respect his autonomy. If there’s a chance that his life can be extended by successful management of his alcoholism, and if discussing the problem with his wife will help, thoughtful friends would do just that.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

    • 88 Shares104 Views

      in Elections

      Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors?

      by

      The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether voters should be held accountable for their chosen candidate’s behavior.From my perspective, the attack on the Capitol spurred on by Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, the efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election with false electors and unfounded court cases and the persistent effort to discredit those election results without evidence amounted to an attempt to overthrow a pillar of our democracy. More to the point, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 includes crimes against the nation described as treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of government. I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election. Would you agree that people who vote for Trump in light of these circumstances are themselves guilty of treasonous acts? — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:Something like three-quarters of Americans, surveys over the past year report, think democracy in America is threatened. To go by exit-poll data, those voters supported Trump in about the same proportions as those who thought democracy was secure. In a study published last year, researchers at U.C. Berkeley and M.I.T. provided evidence that democratic back-sliding around the world — with citizens voting for authoritarian leaders — is driven in part by voters who believe in democracy but doubt that the other side does. The researchers found that such voters, once shown the actual levels of support for democracy among their opponents, became less likely to vote for candidates who violated democratic norms. The general point is that not understanding the actual views of people of other parties — and assuming the worst of them — can be dangerous for democracy.Trump voters, for the most part, don’t think he committed treason. And your position can’t be that unknowingly voting for someone guilty of treason is itself treasonous. Perhaps you think that they should believe him to have been treasonous. Similar issues were aired when Henry Wallace, otherwise a highly dissimilar figure, ran for president in 1948. He had denounced the Marshall Plan, wanted the Soviet Union to play a role in the governance of Germany’s western industrial heartland and — detractors thought — was a Stalin apologist.Historians can debate whether he was a voice of conscience or a pawn of America’s adversaries. But suppose you were among those who viewed him as a traitor. To have extended the indictment to his supporters would have been to criminalize political disagreement. Besides, if voting for someone who has done bad things makes you guilty of them, most voters are in deep trouble. It’s easy to be inflamed by someone with a habit of making inflammatory statements. But there may be a cost when you deem those who vote for the other side as ‘‘the enemy from within.’’ That’s a term that Trump has freely employed, of course. You’ll want to ask yourself whether protecting democracy is best served by adopting this attitude.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Stop the Steal’ Is About Not Trusting Voters

      by

      One of the key points in the unsealed legal filing presented by the special counsel Jack Smith in the criminal case against Donald Trump for conspiracy to subvert the 2020 presidential election is that both Trump and his allies were well aware that he had lost the election. The evidence, Smith says, shows that Trump knew he didn’t have a case. But rather than accept the verdict of the voting public, Trump led the effort to pressure officials to overturn election results.“With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results,” Smith’s prosecutors wrote. “The throughline of these efforts was deceit: the defendant’s and co-conspirators’ knowingly false claims of election fraud.”Smith shows that Trump did nothing to stop the mob from forming on Jan. 6 and was indifferent to the safety of both Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the Electoral College count at the Capitol, and members of Congress. Using evidence collected through interviews with people working in the White House at the time, prosecutors recreated a key moment during the chaos, when Trump was sitting alone in the White House dining room, watching Fox News.“It was at that point — alone, watching news in real time, and with knowledge that rioters had breached the Capitol building — that the defendant issued the 2:24 p.m. tweet attacking Pence for refusing the defendant’s entreaties to join the conspiracy and help overturn the results of the election,” prosecutors wrote. “One minute later, the Secret Service was forced to evacuate Pence to a secure location in the Capitol.”I don’t want to rehash the events of Jan. 6 here — although if JD Vance’s refusal to state the outcome of the 2020 presidential election is any indication, we have no choice but to rehash those events again and again between now and Nov. 5 — but I will say this: It is a misunderstanding of Donald Trump to say that he did this because he rejected his defeat at the hands of Joe Biden. It is probably better to say that Trump tried to overturn the election results because he simply does not accept the idea that voters should be allowed to defeat him.We saw some of this in 2016, when he refused to say whether he would accept the election results, and we’re seeing it now, when Trump has openly said that whether he accepts the results is contingent on whether he wins. Of course, Trump’s allies in states such as Georgia and Arizona are also working incessantly to sabotage the process as much as possible and give the former president some basis for rejecting the results should he lose.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      JD Vance’s Blood-and-Soil Nationalism Finds Its Target

      by

      If Senator JD Vance of Ohio had a moral compass, a shred of decency or a belief in anything other than his own ambition and will-to-power, he would resign his Senate seat effective immediately, leave the presidential race and retire from public life, following a mournful apology for his ethical transgressions.As it stands, Vance has done none of the above, which is why he is still, as of today, using his position in the United States Senate and on the Republican Party presidential ticket to spread lies and smears against his own constituents in Springfield — Haitian immigrants who have settled there to make a new life for themselves.The main impact of those lies and smears — which began Monday when Vance told his followers on X that “reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country,” and continued Tuesday when Donald Trump told an audience of 67 million people that “they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats” — has been to terrorize the entire Springfield community.On Thursday, bomb threats led to the evacuation of two elementary schools, city hall and the state motor vehicle agency’s local facility. The mayor has received threats to his office, and local families fear for the safety of their children. Several Springfield residents, including Nathan Clark — father of Aiden Clark, the 11-year-old killed when his school bus was struck by a minivan driven by a Haitian immigrant — have pleaded with Trump and Vance to end their attacks and leave the community in peace.“My son was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti,” said Clark, rebutting a claim made by Vance. “This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state and even the nation, but don’t spin this towards hate,” he continued. “Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose.”This direct rebuke from a grieving father has stopped neither Vance nor Trump from spreading anti-immigrant — and specifically anti-Haitian — lies and fanning the flames of hatred. “Don’t let biased media shame you into not discussing this slow moving humanitarian crisis in a small Ohio town,” Vance said on Friday. “We should talk about it every day.”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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Maybe We Are Asking Presidential Candidates the Wrong Questions

      by

      If the goal of the CNN interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was to relitigate the campaign controversies of the last month — to get the candidates to talk about the major narratives of the election so far — then it was a rousing success. Harris easily dispatched questions about her identity and gave a strong defense of President Biden’s record. Walz, likewise, made short work of the charge that he had misled the public when he spoke about using one fertility treatment when it was actually another, similar treatment.But if the goal was to learn something about a prospective President Harris — to gain insight into how she might make decisions, order priorities and approach the job of chief executive — then I think the interview was not a success. Not so much for Harris or the viewing public.It might be interesting to journalists to know how Harris explains her changing views from 2019, when she ran for the Democratic nomination, to now, when she is the nominee. But it is not at all clear to me that it is interesting to viewers, who may be less concerned with how she deals with the question and more concerned with the actual substance of what she wants to do as president. A soft-focus question about a photograph, however iconic, seems less valuable than a question about Harris’s view of the presidency now that she’s spent almost four years in the passenger’s seat as vice president.Speaking for myself, I am less interested in hearing candidates navigate controversies or speak to narratives than I am in hearing them talk, for lack of a better term, about their theory of the office. How does a candidate for president conceptualize the presidency? What would she prioritize in office and how would she handle an endless onslaught of crises and issues that may, or may not, demand her attention? How does she imagine her relationship with Congress and how would she try to achieve her goals in the face of an opposition legislature? How does she imagine her relationship with the public and what value does she place on communication and the bully pulpit? Are there presidents she most admires — and why? Are there presidential accomplishments that stand out and how so? What are the worst mistakes a president can make? Why do you want this job in the first place?I can think of other questions along these lines, but you get the gist. To know what candidates for president think about the office and their role in it is, I believe, a better guide to what they may do in the White House than almost anything else. The only thing better is prior experience. These kinds of questions may not make for the most scintillating television, but I think they could provide the kind of insights that could actually help Americans decide what they want out of a national leader.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      JD Vance Has Right-Wing Friends in High Places

      by

      The single most troubling thing about Senator JD Vance — his bizarre understanding of the work of J.R.R. Tolkien notwithstanding — is his close relationship with some of the most extreme elements of the American right.When asked to explain his worldview, Vance has cited his former boss, Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who has written passionately against democracy (“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible”), and Curtis Yarvin, a software developer turned blogger and provocateur who believes the United States should transition to monarchy (“If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia”). Yarvin has also written favorably of human bondage (slavery, he once wrote, “is a natural human relationship”) and wondered aloud if apartheid wasn’t better for Black South Africans.While Vance’s admirers see him as a uniquely intellectual presence in American politics — a thinker as much as a politician — his right-wing, authoritarian views are largely derivative of the views and preoccupations of Thiel, Yarvin and their community of “postliberal” ideologues and reactionary venture capitalists. Take Vance’s view that the United States is in a period of Romanesque decline. “We are in a late republican period,” Vance said on a podcast in 2021. “If we’re going to push back against it, we’re going to have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.”Compare this to Thiel’s view that “liberalism” and “democracy” are “exhausted,” and that to restore the nation “we have to ask some questions very far outside the Overton window.” Is this a call for new tax cuts, or does it represent a fundamental hostility toward popular constitutional government in the United States?In addition to relationships with Thiel and Yarvin, Vance is also in close contact with the bottom feeders on the far right. For nearly two years, according to The Washington Post, Vance was in regular conversation by text message with Chuck Johnson, a notorious Holocaust denier who has spent the better part of a decade promoting right-wing conspiracy theories.And as my colleague Michelle Goldberg wrote this week, Vance is close enough to Jack Posobiec — an alt-right lunatic who pushed the vile and absurd Pizzagate conspiracy theory and collaborated with online neo-Nazis to spread antisemitic hate — to blurb his latest book, a polemic devoted to the idea that liberals and leftists are Untermenschen who must be stopped lest they destroy civilization. “As they are opposed to humanity itself,” Posobiec and his co-author, Joshua Lisec, write, “they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman.”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

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      If ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Is a Cautionary Tale, It Was Lost on JD Vance

      by

      It is just my luck that the week I was on vacation also happened to be one of the most consequential weeks in recent American political history. In addition to the attempt on Donald Trump’s life and the subsequent Republican National Convention, there was also President Biden’s decision to stand down from the presidential race and hand the baton to his vice president, Kamala Harris.I have a lot of thoughts about all this, but for now I want to talk about one of the minor characters in this saga — JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president.That Vance, more than two weeks after the convention, is still in the public eye as a subject of controversy over his remarks condemning childless women is evidence enough that he is, so far, a burden to the Trump campaign and not an asset. But at the moment I am less interested in the ways that Vance has adopted the tropes of online “manosphere” influencers than I am in the stories he tells about himself and his ideology.A few days after he received the nomination, Politico published a story on his deep affinity for “The Lord of the Rings,” the series of fantasy novels by J.R.R. Tolkien that were adapted, about 20 years ago, into blockbuster fantasy epics. Vance has, according to Politico, “pointed to Tolkien’s high fantasy epics as a window into understanding his worldview.”Although Vance does not seem to specify the precise manner in which “The Lord of the Rings” has influenced his conservatism, his allies have taken it upon themselves to offer some explanation. “Vance’s appreciation of Tolkien is not unrelated to his conversion to Catholicism in 2019,” Luke Burgis, a professor at the Catholic University of America, said to Politico. “Of the many ways that Tolkien’s work exemplifies the Catholic imagination, one is the relationship between the visible and the invisible. I think it’s fair to say that Vance believes there is real spiritual evil in this world, and it can become embodied in rites and rituals.”Vance, he continued, very likely took away from Tolkien “an apocalyptic frame of mind” reflecting the story’s concern with the battle between good and evil.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

      ‘The Bear’ Season 3 Is a Clanging, Wailing Beast

      by

      The hit FX series about an upstart Chicago restaurant loves the pressures of tight quarters and close shouting. The new season serves up plenty more.Jeremy Allen White stars in “The Bear.”FXSeason 3 of “The Bear,” available now on Hulu, is a volcano of self-loathing. Appropriately for a show set in Chicago, “The Bear” tends to move in a loop, revisiting the past and bringing old wounds into the present day aboard a clanging, wailing beast. This go-round makes all the local stops: enchanting food porn, bitter screaming matches, elegant monologues, small moments where the audience can learn culinary techniques, a character’s back story that boils down to “they were poor and needed a job.” Doors open on the right at repressed rage.When we last saw our Bear pals, the friends-and-family preview night for their revamped restaurant had collapsed because Carmy (Jeremy Allen White) locked himself in the walk-in fridge — but really because of the fragility and volatility of the clique at large, and the fact that the characters mostly hate their friends and families. Everyone yelled even more than usual, with Carmy and Richie (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) whipping themselves into hysteria through the fridge door, and Carmy and Claire (Molly Gordon) breaking up. Sydney (Ayo Edebiri) was left with all of the responsibility but none of the authority. The action of this season begins moments later, a blue cloud of dejection hanging over everyone.I used to think of “The Bear” as claustrophobic, but now I think it’s claustrophilic: This show loves tight spaces, the pressures of close quarters. Its hugs are all rib-cracking, suffocating, too much. Even dermatologists don’t require such detailed examinations of every mole and pore on people’s cheeks.The show often name-drops actual restaurants, and many real chefs appear as themselves. (This season, they appear a bit too much: Save it for the endless mutual appreciation societies on “Top Chef.”) The omnipresent jargon, the if-you-know-you-know details and the fly-on-the-wall style give everything a rush of legitimacy — it may not be not true, but it’s real. Or wait: maybe not real, but true.That veracity is tempered by the show’s appetite for contrivance. Barnburner monologues give way to dialogue so repetitive it might as well be a Meisner exercise. Comic relief becomes sitcom buffoonery from a dumber planet. The show’s high-profile cameos can yank you out of the action and make you think “ooo, Jamie Lee Curtis” and not just “ooo, dysfunctional Christmas.”Characters on “The Bear” struggle to express themselves and struggle to be understood, so they repeat everything, over and over, louder and louder. What grates is when the show itself does this, too, always adding another line for good measure — just to make extra sure you definitely, 100 percent got what it was going for. In one scene at the end of this season, Carmy and Luca (Will Poulter), Carmy’s old chef pal, reminisce about how many peas they shucked for a certain dish while working together. Sydney says it sounds like “a trauma dish.”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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent. Should I Report Them?

      by

      My Date Recorded Us Having Sex Without My Consent. Should I Report Them?Illustration by Tomi UmI went on a date with someone, and we went back to their apartment. In the middle of sex, I caught this person, who uses they/them pronouns, recording me on their phone. For my safety, I chose to pretend I did not notice, as I did not want to be stranded in the middle of the night. In the morning, I confronted them, and they apologized and deleted the video. They said that was their first time recording someone during sex and a spur-of-the-moment decision, albeit a bad one.When I arrived home I felt more dehumanized than angry, as if I were a sex toy. I told my friends what happened, and they were very upset, and urged me to file a police report. I dismissed this at first, but I looked online and found that capturing imagery of a person’s private parts without their consent, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, is a violation of state and federal laws.I decided to contact my date and inform them of the gravity of their actions and told them never to do it again. I also decided that I didn’t want to press charges. I do not want to subject myself to a lengthy legal process, repeating and reliving this story over and over, as well as having to tell my family or put my life on hold. My friends are concerned that I don’t feel upset enough, and they assume that this was not my date’s first time recording someone, and will not be the last. They think I should file a police report to prevent my date from recording others in the future. I chose to assume that my date is a normal human being who made a stupid decision and does not necessarily deserve a criminal record because of it. By informing my date of the severity of their actions, they now know to never make that mistake again.My friends don’t agree with my decision, despite understanding why I would not want to press charges. We all agree that it should not be my responsibility to prevent my date from committing future crimes, but they think I should do it anyway because it’s the right thing to do. I fear that they think less of me now because I am ‘‘protecting’’ my date by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and that I’m being selfish because I do not want to sacrifice myself to the legal system on the chance that my date is a morally reprehensible person who will continue to record people without their consent. — Name Withheld, San DiegoFrom the Ethicist:Philosophers sometimes contrast ‘‘agent-neutral’’ reasons with ‘‘agent-relative’’ ones: Very roughly, the first are general ones that apply to everybody; the second are specific to a person. There is an agent-neutral reason any child should be fed and cared for; there is an agent-relative reason I should feed and care for my child. The distinction can arise when we’re talking about supererogatory acts — acts that go beyond what’s morally required of you. Suppose, in an example offered by the philosopher Elizabeth Harman, you’re a bystander who’s preparing to enter a burning building to try to save a couple of people inside it. She suggests that from a general third-party perspective your proposed act may be simply admirable — but that a true friend isn’t going to urge you on. Instead, the friend, raising agent-relative reasons, will say: ‘‘Don’t risk your life. Think about your family.’’ If someone of modest means decides to give half her income to charity, similarly, strangers will find it praiseworthy, but, Harman writes, a friend may urge her to reconsider, asking how it will affect her and her loved ones.I understand why you’re being pressured. We want to see justice done; an investigation could reveal whether there’s a pattern of criminal offenses here. But what strikes me is that your friends aren’t acting like friends, giving priority to your own needs and interests; they’re acting like strangers, focused only on what they think would be best for the world. They want you to do something that has an unpredictable chance of benefiting unknown others, but that would also, you believe, cause you a great deal of stress and disrupt your life.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