Tools
Change country:

Индия объявила о запрете экспорта пшеницы

Индия объявила о запрете экспорта пшеницы
Read full article on: rg.ru
Kate Moss, Johnny Depp Relationship Timeline From Trashed Hotels to Regrets
A deep dive into Kate Moss and Johnny Depp's relationship, including the relationship timeline, when it began and ended, as well as the alleged altercation.
newsweek.com
Colin Kaepernick works out for the Las Vegas Raiders. Here is what we know.
Colin Kaepernick took a step toward an NFL return Wednesday, working out for the Raiders. Here's everything to know related to comeback efforts.       
usatoday.com
'Obi-Wan Kenobi' Explained: Who Are Reva and the Grand Inquisitor?
"Obi-Wan Kenobi" will see its titular Jedi Master face his biggest foe Darth Vader, but he will also have other enemies to contend with in the Disney+ show.
newsweek.com
America’s Gun Problem
More guns in the U.S. mean more deaths.
nytimes.com
‘He Came in and Shot Her’: Fourth-Grade Uvalde Survivor Reveals Chilling Encounter With Gunman
Anadolu Agency via GettyA fourth-grade boy who survived Tuesday’s massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, says he witnessed the gunman’s cold-blooded attack on children as he hid underneath a table waiting for help to arrive.The boy, who has not been named, told local news outlet KENS 5 that the shooter, identified by authorities as 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, said “It’s time to die” after barricading himself inside the classroom. While police have not yet determined the motive for the rampage that killed 19 children and two teachers, the boy’s account provides some of the first details on how things unfolded in the barricaded classroom as the gunman picked off elementary-school students with an assault rifle.“When I heard the shooting through the door, I told my friend to hide under something so he won’t find us. I was hiding hard. And I was telling my friend to not talk because he is going to hear us,” the boy said.Read more at The Daily Beast.
thedailybeast.com
The Big Lie and the Midterms
The Republican primaries in Georgia and Pennsylvania tested the lingering influence of false claims about election fraud.
nytimes.com
How Kate Middleton's Fashion Inspired Queen's Granddaughter at Garden Party
Princess Beatrice, Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughter, appeared at a Buckingham Palace garden party in two of Kate Middleton's favorite styles.
newsweek.com
Fact Check: Did FDA Shut Down Abbott's Baby Formula Factory?
Formula shortages have spread across the U.S. after Abbott Nutrition, one of the country's biggest suppliers, closed its plants following infant death reports.
newsweek.com
Russia Squandered Decades Worth of Soft Power Gains Over Ukraine War
Vladimir Putin's invasion has removed Russia from a seat at the top international table.
newsweek.com
Firefighters rescue newborn elk from ashes of massive wildfire
"Cinder" was discovered at a tender days-old age with his umbilical cord still attached, a veterinarian said.
cbsnews.com
Casting NFL players as 'Top Gun' stars: Roles for Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes?
In celebration of the release of "Top Gun: Maverick," USA TODAY Sports likened some notable NFL players to characters from the original classic.       
usatoday.com
Democrats' Focus On 'Gun Control' Won't Solve Any of Our Problems | Opinion
Let's work together to come up with proposals that will actually make a difference.
newsweek.com
Deep State Allies Play Judge, Jury and Perhaps Executioner Against Durham | Opinion
The lack of even the appearance of impartiality erodes confidence in our justice system.
newsweek.com
How Criminal-Justice Reform Fell Apart
A typical way to think about history is as a series of turning points. Sometimes it’s just as useful to think about the moments that looked like turning points and then turned out not to be.For a brief period, culminating two summers ago, the United States seemed to be on the verge of a serious rethinking of its approach to criminal justice. Years of falling crime had made citizens open to new policies. Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that too many people were in American prisons for too long, and the GOP-led Congress passed the First Step Act, a major reform package that aimed to reduce federal prison sentences, in 2018. A series of police killings of Black people, starting with Michael Brown in 2014, had already brought new attention to the excesses of policing, use of force, and racism.Then in March 2020, Breonna Taylor died in a police raid gone wrong in Louisville, Kentucky, and in May 2020, George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. These deaths galvanized already shifting public sentiment, and inspired the largest protests in American history. Support for Black Lives Matter, disapproval of police, and belief that Black Americans suffer regular discrimination surged, especially among white Americans.[Adam Serwer: The new Reconstruction]Two years later, those demonstrations look like a high-water mark in the push for reform, not a breakthrough moment. Rising violent-crime rates and changing political circumstances have sapped the demand for change. Many of the most ambitious overhauls considered after Floyd’s murder have been abandoned or reversed. Republicans have soured on the ideas behind the First Step Act. A May poll from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst finds diminished support for BLM and a range of police reforms. Voters even in the most liberal cities have signaled that they want tougher policies on crime. What’s now clear is that the support for criminal-justice reform was a mile wide and an inch deep.The biggest change is the rise in crime, especially violent crime. For reasons that are still not fully understood, several major categories of crime (but not all) began spiking during the summer of 2020. The jump was correlated with the coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns, as well as with the protests. In a Pew Research Center poll in June 2020, just four in 10 Americans viewed violent crime as a very big problem. Today, 54 percent do—and nine in 10 say it’s at least a moderately big problem. (The increase reflects greater concern among white, Black, and Hispanic Americans alike.) Americans were ready to take a chance on reforms as long as they felt safe, but rising crime rates rattled confidence, even though crime nearly everywhere remains far below historical highs.One of the many victims of this crime wave was the fledgling bipartisan consensus on criminal justice. In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned for president while making false claims about rising crime, but early in his term, he embraced the First Step Act, under the influence of his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, whose father had been incarcerated. But Trump’s heart never seemed to be in it. After Floyd’s death, he initially condemned police violence, but quickly grasped that unreservedly backing police and warning about crime could be a useful wedge issue in his reelection campaign.Joe Biden, Trump’s opponent, was unusually well positioned to absorb these political blows. Although his role in passing the 1994 crime bill was a liability in the 2020 Democratic primary, his skepticism of calls to defund the police and long ties with law enforcement helped neutralize Trump’s attacks. They also probably neutralized the reform push once he took office. The White House adopted a hands-off approach as Congress tried and ultimately failed to reach a bipartisan deal on a police-reform bill. Later, when a draft executive order including new national standards and guidelines for policing leaked in January 2022, the White House moved to make nice with law-enforcement groups.Biden finally signed an executive order yesterday that establishes a database of fired officers, bans chokeholds, and includes some other provisions, but it’s only binding on federal law-enforcement agencies—not the overwhelming majority of the roughly 18,000 police departments in the country. Meanwhile, the issue has become the subject of the normal partisan bickering. “Last fall, Senate Republicans rejected the George Floyd Justice in Policing act,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at a ceremony unveiling the order. “They walked away from their moral obligation to address what caused millions of Americans to walk in the street, the critical need that a coalition of Americans were demanding, were pleading for, in terms of reform and accountability.”One of the most notable moments in Biden’s first State of the Union address, in March, came when the president said, “We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police with the resources and training they need to protect our communities. Fund them. Fund them. Fund them.” Earlier this month, he called on states to spend stimulus money, passed as pandemic relief, on law enforcement. Funding police is not necessarily antithetical to new approaches—Democrats have noted that extra cash can help fund mental-health response programs as an alternative to sworn officers, for example—but Biden’s comments underscore how policy makers have switched their focus from reform to crime-fighting.[David A. Graham: America is having a violence wave, not a crime wave]One promise of the 2010s reform movement, with strong evidence in some instances, is that citizens could have fairer policing without sacrificing any safety. New York City provided the most celebrated example. Some officials had credited the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policing tactics with turning the once-edgy city into a remarkably safe one. But when the city ended stop-and-frisk under judicial and political pressure, crime continued to drop.As soon as crime began rising, however, citizens’ appetite for experimentation evaporated. In New York, voters elected a mayor whose major selling point was his experience as a police officer, and who promised a tougher tack on crime—notwithstanding the enigmas around the city’s safety wave. Voters in San Francisco and Los Angeles, who had elected avatars of the “progressive prosecutor” movement in 2019 and 2020, have now launched campaigns to recall them. In San Francisco, the recall vote is June 7, and polling suggests that District Attorney Chesa Boudin will lose. As my colleague Annie Lowrey writes, there is a persuasive argument that Boudin “simply isn’t good at the job,” but the dominant case against him—that he has made the city more dangerous—is questionable; in fact, there’s evidence that his policies might improve safety in the long term, but voters are antsy now. (In another sign of the national mood, Republicans placed demagogic attacks on Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson’s sentencing record at the heart of her confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court this spring.)Voters have rejected or reversed changes to police departments too. Although Los Angeles and Portland embarked on high-profile reductions in police budgets in 2020, both cities restored and increased funding in the face of rising murder rates. In Minneapolis, voters not only rejected a poorly thought-out proposal to replace the existing department with a new Department of Public Safety, but also ejected two incumbent city-council members who backed it. In Atlanta, city leaders who were quick to fire a reform-minded chief of police also forged ahead on a plan to build a massive police-training facility derided by activists as “Cop City.”Reformists have not been stopped everywhere. Austin embarked on a full overhaul of its department and police academy that has attracted national attention (and escaped punishment from state lawmakers, so far). Many cities, such as Durham, North Carolina, are experimenting with new alternative-response programs. Larry Krasner, the progressive prosecutor in Philadelphia, survived a reelection campaign against a rival backed by police unions. Overall, however, there is no question that reform momentum has ebbed.[Annie Lowrey: The people vs. Chesa Boudin]A continued retreat from reform is not certain. If crime levels off or drops, perhaps Americans will be ready to consider reform again. Maybe another horrific case like Floyd’s will reawaken anger, though the successful prosecution of officers involved in his death might give the impression that sufficient accountability exists. But as I warned when Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in April 2021, individual prosecutions remain too rare and too narrow to produce serious shifts in the American system. Another danger is that a return of brutal policing tactics will drive down crime. The Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey has argued that now-abandoned methods can be effective at reducing crime, but unsustainably and at a great cost in justice. That means tough-on-crime tactics now might “work,” as measured in numbers, but wound the nation.Beyond policing, major overhauls to the justice system, such as reducing the world’s highest incarceration rate, would require citizens to accept less punitive approaches, such as allowing even people guilty of heinous crimes to eventually leave prison, as the journalist Adam Gopnik has written. The speed with which the national mood shifted from more incremental reforms back toward increased security doesn’t suggest that the American people are anywhere near prepared to take those steps.
theatlantic.com
Celebrating Lenny Kravitz 58th birthday
Celebrating singer, record producer, and actor Lenny Kravitz' 58th birthday on May 26 through photos of his iconic career.
nypost.com
Fox News Panelist Who Condemned Gun Control Works for Firearms Manufacturer
Volquartsen Firearms, a manufacturer in Iowa, has described Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich as an ambassador and used her to promote their products.
newsweek.com
How Gas Bill Payments Can Impact Your Credit Score
It takes longer to rebuild your credit than to damage it, according to personal finance experts. Here's how gas bills and other utilities can dent your score.
newsweek.com
Police response to Texas school shooting questioned: CBS News Flash May 26, 2022
A young man who lives across the street from the Texas elementary school where 19 children and 2 teachers were killed tells The Associated Press he urged police to charge into the school when he saw the gunman run in. He claims the officers did not go in. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed this country's strictest abortion law. And Boeing's Starliner capsule landed back on Earth just four hours after leaving the International Space Station.
cbsnews.com
11 newborns killed as fire tears through hospital in Senegal
The nation's president said only three infants could be saved from the blaze, which a local official blamed on an electrical short circuit.
cbsnews.com
'Under the Banner of Heaven': Did Ron and Dan Lafferty Really Plan to Kill More People?
Ron Lafferty believed he received a revelation from God that commanded he commit a ritualistic murder of his sister-in-law Brenda Wright Lafferty and her baby.
newsweek.com
Tim McGraw, Chris Pratt and Selena Gomez lead stars speaking out on Texas school shooting
Tim McGraw, Chris Pratt and Selena Gomez lead celebrity tributes to the victims of the school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas on Tuesday.
foxnews.com
Joe Biden's Gaffes Are Causing the White House a Communications Headache
One political scientist told Newsweek that the president's gaffes do not compare with Donald Trump's but thought that some of Biden's recent remarks may be a cause for concern.
newsweek.com
Сыгравший Элвиса Остин Батлер подтвердил свое участие во второй "Дюне"
30-летний актер Остин Батлер официально подтвердил, что примет участие во второй части "Дюны"
1 h
http://rg.ru
Who Won 'Survivor 42' and What Does the Champion Win?
"Survivor 42" has crowned its new champion after a series of grueling challenges, tribal rivalry, and incredible victories.
1 h
newsweek.com
Man's 'Gross' Message to Girlfriend Over Hair Left in Shower Sparks Anger
"Just wait till she's your wife and you have to swipe the drain with your foot every time you shower," one person warned.
1 h
newsweek.com
Fears of a Chinese invasion have Taiwanese civilians taking up target practice
More Taiwanese say they are willing to fight if attacked by China. But without firearms or sufficient military training, many wonder how to prepare.
1 h
latimes.com
Editorial: Most Americans want stricter gun laws. Senate Republicans don't seem to care
Even the killing of 19 children and two teachers in a Texas classroom seems unlikely to spur reform
1 h
latimes.com
Editorial: The problem with college debt is that we never fix the causes
Erase $10,000 in debt per person? $50,000? Biden is expected to announce his plan for burdensome student debt, but the problem will only be compounded unless we reform how much students spend on college.
1 h
latimes.com
Granderson: Black votes count, even if results for Black voters seem scarce
Frustration with politicians and American life should drive people to the polls more often, not just for presidential and congressional elections.
1 h
latimes.com
My Kid Is Endlessly Curious About The World But… I Don’t Have Answers. What Should I Do?
Talking to your kid about the meaning of life can be daunting. But it’s an opportunity to tap back into your natural curiosity.
1 h
slate.com
2023 Acura Integra Review: Refinement Yields Enthusiasm
The five-door Integra returns with modern tech and a manual transmission.
1 h
newsweek.com
Watch Live as One of the Biggest Asteroids of the Year Speeds Past Earth
The asteroid—known as 7335 (1989 JA)—will come as close as 2.5 million miles to the Earth while traveling at 47,200 miles per hour.
1 h
newsweek.com
Unpack Your Bags, Mr. President | Opinion
The Palestinians—both Hamas and the PA—have no fear that the U.S. will revoke their money or political support.
1 h
newsweek.com
The Clash Marks 40 Years of 'Combat Rock'
Featuring the hits "Rock the Casbah" and "Should I Stay or Should I Go," the band's 1982 album fhas been reissued.
1 h
newsweek.com
Everything the Rangers must do to keep the momentum rolling in Game 5
As the series becomes a best-of-three, the Rangers need to find a way to translate their Games 3 and 4 success to PNC Arena, which Carolina has turned into a fortress these playoffs.
1 h
nypost.com
America Needs Anti-Racialism
President Joe Biden has declared war on white supremacy. Shortly after the hideous racist massacre in Buffalo, New York, he urged his fellow citizens to banish this hateful ideology from our public life: “We need to say, as clearly and forcefully as we can, that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America.” But what exactly do we mean by white supremacy, and what would it mean to bring it to an end?Debates over race and racism—their importance to U.S. history, their salience for present-day politics, and what steps the government should take to address them—are central to our politics. Although there is widespread agreement that the state of race relations in America is a matter of urgent concern, there is deep disagreement over the nature of the problem. Is it the persistence of racial disparities in income, wealth, and elite representation, regardless of whether they’re the product of state-enforced racial discrimination or the uneven distribution of social capital across families and informal networks at a given point in time? Or is the problem the brightness of the boundaries separating minority ethnic groups from the societal mainstream? Call this the distinction between anti-racists and anti-racialists. Both want racial progress, but they have a drastically different understanding of what racial progress would look like.[Ibram X. Kendi: The double terror of being Black in America]In some circles, the default position is the ideology known as “anti-racism,” often derided by its critics as “wokeness.” According to prominent proponents of this view, such as the Boston University professor and Atlantic contributing writer Ibram X. Kendi and the New York Times Magazine writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, racism is the defining fact of American life, and the old color-blind liberalism is woefully insufficient to address it. The only way our racist history can be overcome, in their view, is for Americans to become more explicitly conscious of race and racism, embrace educational paradigms that center race, and pursue policies that aim not for equal treatment but for “equity,” or equal outcomes among groups. As Kendi summarized this position, “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”Over roughly the past decade, anti-racism has made huge inroads in liberal institutions, including universities, media, and the Democratic Party. This shift has trickled down through the wider Democratic electorate, especially among educated and affluent Democrats, for whom anti-racism has become an intellectual lodestar. Consider the Biden administration’s “equity agenda,” an ambitious effort to embed race consciousness in federal policy making. At the state and local level, a rising generation of progressive elected officials has embraced decarceration and depolicing to address disparities in criminal-justice outcomes. Many have also sought to dismantle selective public education and the use of standardized testing on broadly similar grounds. Bracketing the question of whether anti-racism offers an accurate diagnosis of contemporary American life, it has a clear appeal to certain powerful constituencies, which have been willing to advance its tenets even when doing so has proven politically costly.What is less understood, however, is the opposition to liberal anti-racism. Over the past two years, we’ve seen a wave of parental complaints and legislation against anti-racist school curricula (“critical race theory,” or CRT), and backlash against politicians and district attorneys who have adopted anti-racism-inflected approaches to crime and public safety. One of the more striking illustrations of this phenomenon can be seen in progressive San Francisco, where local voters ousted three of the city’s school-board members in a successful recall effort in February. The recall received particular support in precincts with larger proportions of Asian and Jewish voters, many of whom were reportedly alienated by, among other things, the school board’s decision to end selective admissions at the renowned Lowell High School. Judging by recent polls, a similar coalition is poised to recall Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s district attorney and an exemplar of the anti-racist progressive-prosecution movement, next month.[Annie Lowrey: The people vs. Chesa Boudin]In the eyes of the anti-racists themselves, the campaigns against CRT, affirmative action, and progressive criminal-justice reform are just racism—a form of “white backlash” against the growing political power of minorities, which is all the more insidious for professing to be “color-blind.” Slightly more difficult to account for is the fact that, on many sensitive racial issues, nonwhite minorities are aligned against the positions of the progressive anti-racists. In a Pew Research Center survey from April, for instance, 59 percent of Black respondents, 68 percent of Hispanic respondents, and 63 percent of Asian respondents agreed that race should not be a factor in college admissions. Research from Zach Goldberg, a doctoral student in political science at Georgia State University, has shown that white liberals consistently express stronger agreement with many tenets of the anti-racist worldview than do minorities. More generally, as the Democratic Party has become more and more identified with anti-racism, it has actually shed support among nonwhite people, especially Hispanics.Some anti-racists have sought to explain away these phenomena by invoking concepts such as “multiracial whiteness”—the idea that minorities adopt “white” values in order to curry favor with a white-supremacist system. There’s a grain of truth there, in that many nonwhite people really are aligned with the mainstream American values derided by liberals as racist. But a better way to interpret their worldview—and that of many of the top critics of liberal anti-racism—is that it’s not racist at all. Instead, it’s what I call “anti-racialism.”If liberal anti-racism is grounded in the idea that raising the salience of race is essential to achieving racial justice, anti-racialism holds that heightened race consciousness, and the racialization of disparities and differences that would obtain in any culturally plural society, more often than not cuts against fostering integration, civic harmony, and social progress. Among anti-racist scholars, efforts to lower the salience of race tend to be denounced as manifestations of “laissez-faire racism,” as they ignore or downplay the cumulative and multidimensional nature of racial disadvantage. Yet anti-racialism is a potent political force precisely because it resonates with important aspects of our country’s new racial landscape.First, anti-racialism speaks to the emergence of a new multiethnic mainstream, which marks a departure from the system of minority- and majority-race relations that prevailed for most of American history. Put simply, mainstream American culture is no longer “white” in any narrow sense. Here it’s useful to draw a distinction between whiteness and mainstreamness, a more inclusive and capacious concept. In 2020, the legal academic Ian Haney López and the human-rights lawyer Tory Gavito, both of whom have long been involved in progressive political organizing, reported that though one-fourth of Latinos identified as “people of color,” a large majority disagreed. “They preferred to see Hispanics as a group integrating into the American mainstream, one not overly bound by racial constraints but instead able to get ahead through hard work.”[Adam Serwer: Demography is not destiny]This idea of an expanding mainstream is central to the work of the sociologists Richard Alba and Victor Nee, who’ve defined it as “that part of American society within which ethnic and racial origins have at most minor impacts.” For Americans who’ve been fully incorporated into the societal mainstream, ethnic identity is more voluntary or symbolic than a powerful force that constrains their choices. In The Great Demographic Illusion, Alba underscores that the American mainstream is not coterminous with whiteness. “Just as the white Protestant mainstream that prevailed from colonial times to the middle of the twentieth century evolved through the mass assimilation of Catholic and Jewish ethnics after World War II,” he writes, “the racially defined mainstream of today is changing, at least in some parts of the country, as a result of the inclusion of many nonwhite and mixed Americans.” This is especially true of Americans with roots in Latin America and Asia. Among Hispanic and Asian Americans, intermarriage rates now match or surpass those of Italian and Jewish Americans from the postwar era, a powerful indicator of their incorporation into the mainstream.Granted, one could argue that the divide between Black and white Americans is simply being supplanted by a divide between Black and non-Black Americans that is no less pernicious or impermeable. Consider that the intermarriage rate among Black Americans lags noticeably behind that of other minority ethnic groups, even after accounting for cross-group differences in educational attainment and income. In The Diversity Paradox, the sociologists Jennifer Lee and Frank Bean dub this phenomenon “black exceptionalism,” and it is one of many reasons our discourse over race relations continues to center Black Americans. Even if we accept that some Black Americans are being incorporated into the expanding mainstream as residential integration, rising educational attainment, and geographic and social mobility continue to take hold, the intense racial isolation experienced by most Black descendants of enslaved African Americans remains an important social fact.Nevertheless, there have always been Black conservatives who embrace an anti-racialist perspective. For example, when asked if Black Americans should work their way up without special favors the same way the Irish, Italians, and Jews did, a statement that would be considered beyond the pale in many elite media and academic institutions, the 2020 American National Election Survey found that about 20 percent of Black respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that statement; another 20 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed.Though ideologically conservative Black Americans remain underrepresented in elite discourse, they’re playing an important role in urban Democratic politics. This is especially true in the intensifying debate over crime and disorder, in which a multiethnic coalition of anti-racists calling for decarceration—on the grounds that mass incarceration disproportionately burdens Black Americans—finds itself arrayed against a muliethnic coalition of anti-racialists demanding reinvestment in policing—because all citizens, regardless of color, deserve to be safe from criminal violence.Might this inchoate contest between anti-racists and anti-racialists augur a larger realignment? The answer is far from clear. The main challenge facing anti-racialism today is that it is still a non-elite phenomenon. Although it represents the unarticulated common sense of vast swathes of the electorate, it has few high-status champions and scant presence in mainstream media. For ambitious people looking to ascend through prestigious legacy institutions to positions of national influence, it is simply not the done thing to dwell on the ways in which the current progressive consensus is unrepresentative of how most Americans, including many Americans of color, think about race. But when politicians—including conservative politicians—articulate these values, they can appeal to the untapped anti-racialist majority.
1 h
theatlantic.com
Find Your Midlife Transcendence
“How to Build a Life” is a weekly column by Arthur Brooks, tackling questions of meaning and happiness. Click here to listen to his podcast series on all things happiness, How to Build a Happy Life.The dirty secret of social scientists is that a lot of research is actually “me-search.” Many of us tend to study aspects of life that affect us personally, looking for solutions to our own issues. In that spirit, I celebrated my 58th birthday last week not with a toupee or red sports car, but rather by investigating how to have the best possible midlife crisis.The midlife-crisis phenomenon has taken on almost mythic proportions in the American psyche over the past century. The term was first coined by the Canadian psychoanalyst Elliott Jaques, who noticed a pattern in the lives of “great men” in history: Many of them lost productivity—and even died—in their mid-to-late-30s, which was midlife in past centuries. The idea entered the popular consciousness in the 1970s when the author Gail Sheehy wrote her mega–best seller Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life. Sheehy argued that around the age of 40, both men and women tend to descend into a crisis about getting old, running out of time to meet their goals, and questioning life choices. She based her work on in-depth case interviews with 115 individuals, the most famous of whom was the auto entrepreneur John DeLorean. He went on to become infamous in 1982, when, at the age of 57, he was arrested for attempting to sell about 60 pounds of cocaine to undercover federal agents.[Read: How the midlife crisis came to be]For years, scholars mostly didn’t challenge the conventional wisdom that a traumatic midlife crisis was normal, if not inevitable. More recently, however, many have found that a “crisis” is not our unavoidable fate. With knowledge and effort, you (and I) can make two crucial choices that can lead to harnessing the changes and difficulties of aging to instead design a midlife transcendence.Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.The timing of midlife is very subjective. As the psychologist Daniel J. Levinson aptly defined it 30 years ago (and as others have since validated), middle age is when “one is no longer young and yet not quite old.” This leaves a lot of room for perception. In a 2000 survey by the National Council on Aging, nearly half of the respondents ages 65 and older considered themselves middle-aged, as did a third of Americans in their 70s. For me, 58 feels just about right: My life-insurance company tells me that I can expect to live to 98, given my health and personal habits. I started my adult life at 19, when I left school and started working full-time. So the halfway point of adulthood for me is 58.5.Whether it becomes a crisis or not, midlife is indeed a difficult time for many. One common reason is what psychologists have called “sandwiching”: As you raise your kids, you are also saddled with the care of aging parents. According to findings from the 1995 National Survey of Families and Households, about 40 percent of people in their early 40s have both parents alive; about 80 percent of people in their late 60s have no parents alive. During the intervening years, adults spend an average of 2.5 hours a day in unpaid care of a family member. The burden of caregiving can be even more overwhelming for those with little time or limited financial resources.[Read: The real roots of the midlife crisis]These challenges are compounded by a strange and very personal shift that starts around your 40s: The skills you honed in early adulthood start to wane. If you don’t focus on the abilities that grow as you get older, you might perceive aging as an unmitigated loss, which will be a source of suffering. But you can work to avoid that fate by making two wise decisions about how to think about midlife.The first decision: Choose to focus on what age gives you, not what it has taken away. The developmental psychologist Erik Erikson believed that midlife presents a crossroads with two paths forward, which he called generativity and stagnation. My own research bears this out, and shows that the path you take is largely up to you. Stagnation, which can lead to a crisis, happens when you try to fight against time, whether you’re desperately trying not to look older or struggling against changes in your skills and strengths. Generativity comes from accepting your age and recognizing the new aptitudes and abilities that naturally develop after age 40 and get stronger through your 50s and 60s. These include the growing ability to see patterns clearly, teach others, and explain complex ideas—what psychologists call “crystallized intelligence.”[Read: The kind of smarts you don’t find in young people]The second decision: Choose subtraction, not addition. Early in life, success usually comes from addition: more money, more responsibility, more relationships, more possessions. Life in early adulthood is like filling up an empty canvas. By midlife, however, that canvas is pretty full, and more brushstrokes make the painting worse, not better. This explains why studies find that the most common concerns reported by middle-aged adults involve getting everything done in their busy life, their energy level, job complications, and insufficient sleep.Midlife is the point at which your medium of choice should change from a canvas to a sculpture, in which the work of art appears as a result of chipping away, not adding. This is hard to do when you have accepted a lot of responsibilities at work and at home. But I have found that in many cases, the most important impediment to chipping away is a belief that success = more. In middle age, this is bad math. Work to change your objective by stepping away from voluntary duties and responsibilities, and making more time to think, read, love, and pray—the work that you need to do to reengineer you.[Read: The seven habits that lead to happiness in old age]You can take these steps on your own if you want, or get assistance from the growing number of organizations designed to help you along this path, such as the entrepreneur Chip Conley’s Modern Elder Academy or my own university’s Advanced Leadership Initiative, two programs I have personally participated in. But even if you do nothing at all, a terrible “crisis” is hardly inevitable, nor even especially likely for most people. Writing in the journal Motivation and Emotion in 2000, the Cornell sociologist Elaine Wethington found that 90 percent of Americans are familiar with the idea of the midlife crisis and describe it pretty accurately from a psychological standpoint. But only 15.5 percent of men and 13.3 percent of women reported suffering one.In fact, for most people, life gets better starting in middle age. Over the years, people tend to get happier, more creative, less neurotic, more agreeable, and more conscientious. On average, research suggests that people get steadily psychologically healthier after 30, and well into old age. Most likely, there will be no full-blown crisis even if you just let nature take its course. Pursuing generativity and subtraction will make the second half of life that much better.[Read: An ode to middle age]Looking for joy in middle age might sound like putting lipstick on a pig, looking for a few scraps of happiness in an obviously unhappy period of life. But midlife is not a pig (unless you like pigs), and no lipstick is necessary. You will inevitably face hardships and challenges, just like at any other point in your life. But if you make the right choices, midlife may just be the best opportunity and biggest adventure you have had in decades.
1 h
theatlantic.com
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is the 20th Century’s Last War
Nearly 80 years on from the end of World War II, it is striking how much of that conflict remains with us. This is of course true in terms of historic legacy—politicians who compare themselves to Churchill, for example, or fears of German power within Europe.But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine makes clear that we still live in World War II’s shadow in other ways too. The Russian military, for example, shares many similarities with the great armies of that period. The country’s ground forces are built around large numbers of heavy armored vehicles, most famously tanks, and concentrations of heavy artillery. Much like the German Wehrmacht’s plans for attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, the Russians expected to blast holes in Ukrainian lines with their big guns, and then move tanks and armored personnel carriers through the gaps to make rapid advances, with Russian fighters and bombers in support. Even the Russian navy, with its large surface vessels not too dissimilar in shape and size from those you could have seen in the Pacific or North Atlantic in the early 20th century, was discussed as a force capable of launching an amphibious assault on the Ukrainian coast, much as the Allies did on D-Day in June 1944.We know now that none of this worked out quite as Moscow had planned. In part, this is because of the basic inadequacies of the Russian military, which have revealed themselves to be manifold. Yet to focus on these factors would be to ignore a deeper shift under way, one that holds out the prospect of reshaping both the structure and expectation of militaries around the world.Russia’s botched invasion and Ukraine’s remarkable fortitude in fighting back have illustrated the diminishing power of the heavy and expensive unit of military power, its role challenged by nimbler, easier-to-use—and, crucially, cheaper—systems. Tanks, fighter jets, and warships are being pushed into obsolescence, giving way to new tools of conflict. In the process, we are seeing the very nature of combat change. In fact, we may be witnessing in Ukraine the final war of 20th-century militaries.This transition is most evident with the tank, the king of the land battlefield since World War II. At the time of its invasion in February, Russia held not just a significant numerical advantage over Ukraine in terms of the number of tanks in its arsenal, but a qualitative edge as well—Russian tanks were judged to be some of the best in the world. What we have seen, however, is a tank massacre: Tallies of Russian tank losses range from 700 to 1,200, an enormous loss out of a total arsenal of perhaps 1,500 that took part in the initial invasion. The tank’s vulnerabilities—it is ill-suited to many types of terrain, inflexible in its movements, and the opposite of stealthy—have been known for years, but until this war they had not been exposed so clearly. During World War II, the Germans developed an excellent and cheap handheld anti-tank weapon, nicknamed the Panzerfaust, which struck fear into the hearts of many American, British, and Soviet tankers. However, the Panzerfaust had an effective range of only 30 meters when it was first deployed, and technological advancements extended that to only 100 meters by the end of the war. If a soldier using a Panzerfaust missed (or even hit, it must be said), it was likely to be the last thing he ever did. In Ukraine, by contrast, many Russian tanks have been picked off at distances of two miles or more, by small groups of well-concealed Ukrainian soldiers using handheld anti-tank weapons.This swing in favor of smaller and cheaper defensive weapons has been matched in the air. The Russian air force, which was expected to dominate, has been significantly disrupted by Ukraine’s use of a range of cheaper systems, again including a number of handhelds, among them Stinger missiles that have been in service for almost half a century. Such systems render Russian pilots incapable of carrying out patrols, restricting them to quick point-to-point missions. By neutering Russian airpower, including helicopters, in places such as the Donbas, Ukrainian forces have retained desperately needed mobility. So even when the Russians do make advances, the Ukrainians can adjust. Along with their low-cost anti-air equipment, the Ukrainians have also made good use of cheaper unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, to scout Russian positions and launch attacks where possible. On the seas, the story has been similar. Maybe the most shocking moment of the war so far was the sinking of the Russian Black Sea flagship Moskva, apparently by a homemade Ukrainian anti-ship missile. If Western reports are to be believed—Kyiv has steadfastly refused to comment on its role in the vessel’s sinking—the Ukrainians used two relatively cheap systems to destroy the Moskva: They employed a drone to distract the Moskva’s defensive systems, then hit the ship with two missiles—leading to a catastrophic internal fire and the eventual sinking.This wide-ranging success of cheaper, simpler systems against the ostensibly more advanced (but more expensive) equipment that is a feature of the world’s great militaries is something that has been prophesized for decades, since the advent of the Panzerfaust. If it is now a reality, that has significant implications for how armed forces the world over plan and strategize. As the counterinsurgency expert T. X. Hammes has argued, the improvement of defensive firepower has made forward movement very difficult, changing the balance of modern warfare very much against the attacker. What the Ukraine conflict has revealed is that this shift might be even more dramatic than most have imagined, a change that for the past few decades has been obscured by the overwhelming battle-winning (if not war-winning) capabilities of the American armed forces. The U.S. has held such a marked technological, logistical, and training advantage that its large offensive forces were typically able to thwart the efforts of forces using smaller and cheaper equipment. Going forward, however, the Russian experience is probably more instructive for all states—even the U.S. (American struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan point to even its enormous advantage eroding.) The effectiveness of defensive firepower will only improve. Anti-tank weapons will achieve longer ranges, and their detection ability and accuracy will get better. Drones will be able to stay in the air for longer and avoid detection better, while increasing their lethality and improving their own computational performance. The ability of both to destroy heavy land vehicles while remaining unseen will improve. The massacre of Russian vehicles we have seen in Ukraine will become the norm, not the exception. Navies that want to risk having their ships near the shores of a well-armed enemy will need to contend with huge salvos of anti-ship missiles and even anti-ship drones, far more than their anti-missile capabilities can now handle. This has consequences around the world: If the Chinese were rash enough to attempt an amphibious assault on Taiwan, or the U.S. were rash enough to send large carrier battle groups to the Chinese coast in a battle over the South China Sea, the result would be the Moskva many times over.The future shape of militaries is open to debate. What is clear, though, is that investing in large World War II–era materiel such as the heavy tank, enormous aircraft carrier, and super-expensive fixed-wing aircraft has never been riskier. As far less expensive but still lethal systems continue to improve, the investment that will be required to protect larger, more expensive weapons systems will be financially crippling, even for the American military. Instead, political and military leaders will need to start conceiving of an entirely different battlefield, full of lighter, smaller, more mobile, and in many cases autonomous or remotely operated weapons. In essence, they will need to prepare for the first wars of the 21st century.
1 h
theatlantic.com
В Вологодской области жителям помогают наладить быт соцконтракты
Социальный контракт - это соглашение между человеком, доход которого ниже прожиточного минимума, и органами социальной защиты на выделение определенной суммы материальной поддержки
1 h
http://rg.ru
Mercedes-Benz еще может возобновить производство автомобилей в России
Губернатор Московской области Андрей Воробьёв в эфире "Радио Sputnik" сообщил, что завод Mercedes-Benz ещё может возобновить производство премиальных автомобилей
1 h
http://rg.ru
Пушков: Запад идеологически окаменел
Западная политическая система становится менее гибкой и восприимчивой, считает глава комиссии Совета Федерации по информационной политике и взаимодействию со СМИ Алексей Пушков
1 h
http://rg.ru
Oklahoma governor signs the nation's strictest abortion ban
Oklahoma now becomes the first state in the nation to effectively end availability of the procedure.
1 h
npr.org
Help! My Sister Is Furious That We’re Allowing Dogs—But Not Kids!—at Our Wedding.
Is this really so bad?
1 h
slate.com
Песков: Путин выступит с Посланием в этом году
Пока точных сроков обращения президента с Посланием Федеральному собранию нет, Владимир Путин выступит с ним в течение года, как и полагается по Конституции
1 h
http://rg.ru
Man Fatally Shoots Wife After She Startled Him During Night: Police
Colleen Hoopes was a talented ballerina who was praised for the passion she brought to the stage.
1 h
newsweek.com
Украина мобилизовала IT-армию для борьбы против России
Правительство Украины активизировало IT-армию с целью нанесения ущерба инфраструктуре России и ее сторонников
1 h
http://rg.ru
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi Is Visiting the South Pacific This Week. Here’s What’s at Stake
Here's what to know about a trip seen as a display of Beijing's growing military and diplomatic presence in the region
1 h
time.com
Police response to Texas school shooting questioned
Frustrated onlookers say officers didn't enter the school quickly enough but authorities praised the courage of those who went inside and said they did so as soon as circumstances allowed.
1 h
cbsnews.com