Postal Service (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares199 Views

    Jordan Chiles Lost a Bronze. She’s Not the First American Affected by a Medal Change.

    by

    A court invalidated the gymnast’s win. Here are other notable cases of Americans who lost (or gained) a medal after an event.Taking away an Olympian’s medal is unusual — but not uncommon. On Sunday, the American gymnast Jordan Chiles became the latest athlete to lose one.At the Paris Olympics, Ms. Chiles had won bronze in the individual floor exercise. She originally finished in fifth place with a score that was less than one-tenth of a point from third place, but after her coach appealed, she won the bronze. That appeal, however, came four seconds too late, a court ruled, reinstating Ms. Chiles’s original score. The bronze will now go to Ana Barbosu of Romania, according to the International Olympic Committee. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee intends to appeal the ruling.Ana Barbosu of Romania will get the bronze medal that was taken away from Ms. Chiles.Daniel Berehulak/The New York TimesSeveral other athletes in Olympic history have had to return a medal — most commonly after a failed drug test or the use of a banned substance. Here are some other notable cases of U.S. Olympians giving up their medals — or winning new ones after another athlete was disqualified.Jim Thorpe, 1912 Stockholm GamesThe American track and field star Jim Thorpe won two gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon in Stockholm, setting a world record in the latter event, with 8,412 points, that stood until 1948.But Mr. Thorpe was also talented in several other sports, including baseball, basketball and football.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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says Abortion Will Be Left to the States. Don’t Believe Him.

      by

      When Donald Trump was asked about the recent Florida Supreme Court decision upholding his adopted state’s abortion ban, he promised that he would announce where he stands this week, a sign of how tricky the politics of reproductive rights have become for the man who did more than any other to roll them back. Sure enough, on Monday, he unveiled his latest position in a video statement that attempted to thread the needle between his anti-abortion base and the majority of Americans who want abortion to be legal.Trump’s address was, naturally, full of lies, including the absurd claim that “all legal scholars, both sides,” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and the obscene calumny that Democrats support “execution after birth.” But the most misleading part of his spiel was the way he implied that in a second Trump administration, abortion law will be left entirely up to the states. “The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case the law of the state,” said Trump.Trump probably won’t be able to dodge the substance of abortion policy for the entirety of a presidential campaign; eventually, he’s going to have to say whether he’d sign a federal abortion ban if it crossed his desk and what he thinks of the sweeping abortion prohibitions in many Republican states. But let’s leave that aside for the moment, because when it comes to a second Trump administration, the most salient questions are about personnel, not legislation.Before Monday, Trump had reportedly considered endorsing a 16-week national abortion ban, but the fact that he didn’t should be of little comfort to voters who want to protect what’s left of abortion rights in America. Should Trump return to power, he plans to surround himself with die-hard MAGA activists, not the establishment types he blames for undermining him during his first term. And many of these activists have plans to restrict abortion nationally without passing any new laws at all.Key to these plans is the Comstock Act, the 19th-century anti-vice law named for the crusading bluenose Anthony Comstock, who persecuted Margaret Sanger, arrested thousands, and boasted of driving 15 of his targets to suicide. Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act banned the mailing of every “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article,” including “every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine or thing” intended for “producing abortion.” Until quite recently, the Comstock Act was thought to be moot, made irrelevant by a series of Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment, contraception and abortion. But it was never actually repealed, and now that Trump’s justices have scrapped Roe, his allies believe they can use Comstock to go after abortion nationwide.“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” Jonathan F. Mitchell, Texas’ former solicitor general and the legal mind behind the state’s abortion bounty law, told The New York Times in February. Mitchell is very much a MAGA insider; he represented Trump in the Supreme Court case arising from Colorado’s attempt to boot the ex-president off the ballot as an insurrectionist. As The Times has reported, Mitchell is on a list of lawyers vetted by America First Legal, a nonprofit led by the Trump consigliere Stephen Miller, as having the “spine” to serve in a second Trump administration.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

      Letters With Suspicious Substances Sent to Election Offices Spur Alarm

      by

      Letters, some apparently containing fentanyl or other substances, were sent to local election offices in Georgia, Oregon and Washington State.Local election offices in at least three states were sent letters containing fentanyl or other suspicious-looking substances, the authorities said on Thursday. The letters come at a time when election offices are seeing a growing array of threats and aggressive behavior that has followed baseless charges of election fraud in recent years.The letters targeted election offices in Fulton County, Ga., which includes much of Atlanta; Lane County, Ore., which includes Eugene; and King, Spokane, Pierce and Skagit Counties in Washington. At least two of the mailings were reported to include messages, but beyond an apparent call to stop the election sent to the Pierce County Elections office in Tacoma, their nature was unclear.The Pierce County mailing included a white powder later identified as baking soda. A preliminary analysis of letters sent to King and Spokane Counties in Washington identified the presence of fentanyl, law enforcement authorities said. The letter sent to Fulton County was identified and flagged as a possible threat but had not yet been delivered, said Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state.Fentanyl can be fatal if ingested even in small doses, but in general, experts say, skin contact such as might occur when opening a letter poses little risk. None of the affected election offices reported injuries to employees.The F.B.I. and the U.S. Postal Service are investigating the letters, most of which arrived in Wednesday’s mail. In Washington State, they arrived only days after at least two synagogues in Seattle, the largest city in King County, received packages containing white crystalline or powdery substances.Officials in the affected states called the mailings threats to the democratic process. Mr. Raffensperger called on candidates for political office to denounce them.“This is domestic terrorism and needs to be condemned by anyone who holds elected office and wants to hold elected office,” he said. “If they don’t condemn this, then they’re not worthy of the office they’re running for.” He said his own son died five and a half years ago of a fentanyl overdose.While the mailings drew national attention, intimidation and threats of violence against election officials have become commonplace since former President Donald J. Trump and other Republican officeholders began raising baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.The Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections, singled out early by Mr. Trump and others claiming fraud, has been a frequent target, but hardly the only one. It was not clear whether the mailing to Atlanta had any connection to the racketeering trial playing out in Fulton County court. But election offices nationwide have tightened security, screening visitors and sometimes even installing bulletproof glass, in recent years.Jena Griswold, the Colorado secretary of state, said on Thursday that she had received more than 60 death threats since she was named as a defendant in September in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s right to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot. Threats against officials statewide are common enough that her office has established a process for detecting them.“We’re seeing a high threat environment toward election workers,” said Ms. Griswold, a Democrat. In Oregon, “the very charged interactions with patrons, voting or not, the aggressive pursuits of staff — we’re starting to see that here as well,” said Devon Ashbridge, the spokeswoman for the Lane County Elections office. “This has been a frankly frightening situation.”Nationally, the tide of threatening behavior toward election workers is a factor in the growing number of people leaving the profession and the difficulty in recruiting replacements.“We do see trends in retirements, but this is on a much grander scale than we’ve ever seen before,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief executive officer for programs at the National Association of Election Officials.The Justice Department has filed criminal charges involving election-related threats against at least 14 people since it formed a task force on the issue in June 2021. Ms. Griswold and others say, however, that both the federal and state responses have fallen short of what is needed.And they say they worry that the supercharged atmosphere surrounding the coming presidential election will only make matters worse.Election workers are “our neighbors, our grandparents, Republicans, Democrats together,” Ms. Griswold said. “They didn’t sign up for a really hostile environment for participating in American democracy.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Shredded, Flushed or Removed: The Trump Papers

      by

      More from our inbox:Moving Toward a ‘Republican Autocracy’Why Does the Postal Service Have to Make a Profit?Protesters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Call Logs From Jan. 6 Have Gaps, Panel Finds” (front page, Feb. 11):Shredded documents, records improperly taken to Mar-a-Lago, papers flushed down the toilet, plans to seize voting machines, and now gaps in the official Oval Office call record from Jan. 6. Does this sound like a former president who has done nothing improper or illegal? Hardly! They seem like an archetypal example of the “res ipsa loquitur” legal doctrine — “the thing speaks for itself.”I eagerly await the Jan. 6 committee’s final report. Unpacking more fully these facts and many more, a well-documented and clear story will be told. I suspect that at least some of the committee’s findings will be referred to the Justice Department for investigation.The only question is: Will Donald Trump once again escape legal accountability?Richard CherwitzAustin, TexasThe writer is professor emeritus at the Moody College of Communication, the University of Texas at Austin.To the Editor:Re “Trump Turns Documents Over to U.S. Archives” (news article, Feb. 8):You report that, at the end of his term in office, Donald Trump unlawfully removed 15 cartons of documents and other items from the White House. There has long been a federal statute that makes it illegal to remove papers or documents from a public office. The offense is punishable by up to three years in prison, and the person is “disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”I know this because, in 1970, I was prosecuted for this crime when I burglarized the Selective Service complex in Providence, R.I., and carried off a bit over 15 cartons of papers and documents to destroy later at my leisure. I held a news conference about the burglary. I was duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced (and, I believe, was the only convicted felon in my graduating class at Harvard Law School).Donald Trump should also be prosecuted for this offense.Jerry ElmerProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:Re “Trump Is Said to Have Taken Possible Classified Material With Him” (news article, Feb. 10):Is the irony lost on anyone that one of the most critical events contributing to Donald Trump’s 2016 victory was Hillary Clinton’s supposed mishandling of classified emails and James Comey’s investigation? Can Donald Trump plead ignorance on his reported destruction or removal of documents, some of which may have been classified, from the White House after reveling in the Clinton email investigation?Let us hope that Republicans don’t deliver up yet another double-standard response to this even more egregious misconduct by Mr. Trump.Larry LobertGrosse Pointe Park, Mich.To the Editor:So wads of paper were stuffed down the White House toilets. Well, remember how hard it was to get toilet paper during the early days of the pandemic?Mary GarripoliLos AngelesMoving Toward a ‘Republican Autocracy’“They’re the two most important leaders in the Republican Party,” said one lobbyist.Samuel Corum for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “As Trump Re-emerges, His Base Shows Fractures” (front page, Feb. 1) and “How DeSantis Gamed the Media as He Rose” (news article, Feb. 1):Former President Donald Trump was the catalyst for transforming the Republican Party from a policy-based party to one now focused on replacing our pluralistic democracy with one-party authoritarianism. But while Mr. Trump may be the titular leader of the Republican Party, he is not the future. He will serve only as the figurehead for the future revolution.Others such as Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are the emerging leaders, and they are building a one-party autocratic government. For their vision of America look at how Mr. DeSantis successfully enacted voter suppression legislation, is proposing ballot police to intimidate voters, has signed legislation to suppress political demonstrations and has suppressed academic speech at a state university.The Trump Republicans have a national vision of taking the House and the Senate in 2022, and the presidency in 2024. When that is accomplished all three branches of government will effectively be in Trump Republican autocratic control, and the American experiment in constitutional democracy will be brought to an end.Michael AbelsDeLand, Fla.To the Editor:I can’t believe people still don’t get it. Or if they do, they can’t admit it. The G.O.P. and Donald Trump are one and the same. Reporters try to prod Republican politicians to refute Mr. Trump’s latest madman rant. It won’t happen. Not because they are “afraid” of the base. Because the Republican Party started this coup years ago, before Mr. Trump was elected in 2016.The Republicans are not interested in democracy or this country’s promised ideals. They are interested in total control, a permanent Republican autocracy, power and wealth. And if they have to get in bed with a vengeful, hate-filled wannabe king to bring their coup to a successful conclusion, so be it.They got oh so close. They won’t stop now. Take off the blinders, shake off the wishful thinking. They’re feeding the divisions; they’re dismantling our democratic institutions.Olivia KoppellBrookline, Mass.Why Does the Postal Service Have to Make a Profit?  Desiree Rios for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Lawmakers Vote to Avert Postal Insolvency” (news article, Feb. 9):You write, “Despite being a popular mainstay of American life, the Postal Service regularly fails to turn a profit, with 2020 marking the 14th consecutive year it incurred a net annual loss.”The police, the firefighters, the Army and the Navy all fail to turn a profit. These are responsibilities we expect our government to fulfill regardless of cost.Holding the Postal Service to a standard of profitability is unreasonable and plays into the hands of those who want to eliminate it for private gain.Tamar SingerNew York More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Postal Service Plans Price Increases and Service Cuts to Shore Up Finances

      by

      The 10-year plan, which would lengthen promised delivery times and reduce post office hours, among other provisions, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress.WASHINGTON — The Postal Service unveiled a 10-year strategic plan on Tuesday that would raise prices and lengthen promised delivery times, among other measures, in an effort to recoup $160 billion in projected losses over the next decade.The announcement, which comes as the beleaguered agency is already reeling under nationwide delivery delays and falling use of traditional mail, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress, who would have to pass legislation to carry out some parts of the proposal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California instead vowed to advance an infrastructure bill “to ensure that the Postal Service has the resources needed to serve the American people in a timely and effective manner.”Among other things, the plan would reduce post office hours, consolidate locations, limit the use of planes to deliver the mail and loosen the delivery standard for first-class mail from within three days in the continental United States to within five days, an effort to meet the agency’s 95 percent target for on-time delivery. In a news conference, Kristin Seaver, an executive vice president at the Postal Service, maintained that 70 percent of first-class mail would continue to be delivered in one to three days.The postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, a Trump megadonor and former logistics executive who has faced criticism over his handling of the agency, argued that the steps were necessary given the Postal Service’s worsening financial situation. The agency, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, has lost $87 billion in the past 14 fiscal years and is projected to lose another $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.“We have to start the conversation with we’re losing $10 billion a year,” Mr. DeJoy said in an interview on Tuesday, “and that’s going to continue to go up unless we do something.”“We are hopeful that this is taken for what it is, a positive story, and everybody, let’s get on board,” he added. “And I think, you know, there’s different aspects within each side of the aisle over there that this plan has good stuff for.”But if anything, the release of the plan appeared to intensify opposition to Mr. DeJoy’s leadership among Democrats, who had already blamed him for delivery slowdowns that coincided with operational changes last summer. They had also accused him of sabotaging the Postal Service as President Donald J. Trump promoted unfounded claims of vote-by-mail fraud before the 2020 election.On Tuesday, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, renewed a call for the sitting members of the agency’s Board of Governors to be fired and for Mr. DeJoy to be “escorted to the street where his bags are waiting for him.” The plan should be a “dead letter” for the agency, he added.Ms. Pelosi said Mr. DeJoy’s “cutbacks” would undermine the agency’s mission, “resulting in serious delays and degradation of service for millions.”The Postal Service said that relying more on ground transportation would make delivery more reliable. But the result would be, for some, slower mail.Among the most contentious provisions were price increases for the agency’s services. In its plan, the Postal Service said it expected to find $44 billion in revenue over the next 10 years through regulatory changes, including pricing flexibility. Mr. DeJoy said he could not offer details about the increases.The single largest opportunity for savings under the plan lies in lawmakers’ hands. Congress has mandated that the agency must prefund 75 years’ worth of its retiree health benefits. In the strategic proposal, the Postal Service estimates that it could recoup $58 billion by eliminating the prefunding requirement and introducing Medicare integration, which would align the agency’s retiree health benefit plans with those of many private sector employers and state and local governments.Mr. DeJoy and Ron A. Bloom, the chairman of the Board of Governors, would not offer an explanation of how the Postal Service might recoup the expected $58 billion without legislative and administrative action. Instead, Mr. Bloom maintained, “We’re going to make this happen.” Mr. DeJoy said the agency has had “good conversations” with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.“If people choose to make this about politics, then they can,” Mr. Bloom said. “And it’s Washington, so it won’t surprise anyone if that happens from some time to time.“But you know, you have a bipartisan Board of Governors. You had a rigorous process to choose the P.M.G.,” he added, referring to the postmaster general. “You have what I think is a plan that demonstrates what we’ve been saying for a while, which is we want to grow and revitalize this institution.”Postal legislation has languished in Congress, but Democrats expressed interest in pushing ahead. Senator Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, expressed concerns about several elements in the Postal Service plan but expressed support for postal legislation more generally.Postal Service insiders said the plan was mixed. It promises potential for growth and an investment in new vehicles, along with post offices that meet community needs. But other elements are cause for concern, they said.“If they’re talking about, you know, service excellence, that to us it’s a contradiction to then have mail take longer to get to point A and point B or to reduce hours in retail units,” said Mark Dimondstein, the president of the American Postal Workers Union. “So we certainly oppose and have deep concerns about those part of the plans.”At least some of the elements of the plan will require an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before they can be enacted, said Michael Plunkett, the president of the Association for Postal Commerce. He called it a “tall order” that consumers would accept higher prices from the Postal Service, along with reduced service.Mr. Plunkett said the plan made clear the Postal Service was aiming to bolster its package services, which have made up a growing share of its business. But he said the lack of effort to retain mail volume was disappointing.“On the mail side, they seem to just accept the fact that mail is going away,” Mr. Plunkett said.Asked about his ties to Mr. Trump and those who might disapprove of the plan as a result of those connections, Mr. DeJoy brushed off any criticism.“I’m here representing the Postal Service,” he said, adding, “I don’t pay attention to that.” More