Latest news with #GetTheGavel
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Boston Globe
May I have a word: Directions you can't easily follow
As it happens, this week I saw a book that was meant to be a mere decorative detail in a photo online but that I suspected might make a perfect birthday present for my stepdaughter. I needed, though, to enlarge the image to make sure I was reading the title right. It would never have occurred to me to take a photo and supersize it if I hadn't heard from John. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Of course, that's a book title, not squintstructions , as several readers — Michael Bohnen, of Newton; John Haneffant, of Boston; Tom Hayden, of Chelmsford; and Stephen L. Needles, of Newtown, Pa. — characterized the tiny words at issue. Advertisement Do product descriptions count as instructions? I would think so. Diane McNamara, of Amherst, wrote: 'More than once while showering in a hotel, I have had to get out and fetch my reading glasses in order to know which plastic container was shampoo and which conditioner. My suggestion is nanofont. ' David Mahoney, of Westford, observed that tiny 'print used on packaging to maximize space utilization is similar to the way some audio commercials are unintelligible because they are sped up to fit a 2-minute commercial into 15 seconds.' His suggestion for the coinage we're seeking was nano-notes . Advertisement Others who made use of nano were Thomas F. Schiavoni, of Boston: ' Nanoscription suggests reduced font size ( nano ) and something written ( script );' Rick Smith, of Wellesley, with nanoprint ; and Ed De Vos, of Newton, with nano-nono 'childlike chiding against tiny writing.' Another popular starting point was Lilliput , from Jonathan Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels.' I received Lilliputext, from May DeViney, of North Chelmsford; Lilliprint , from Judith Englander, of South Strafford, Vt., and Rick Smith, of Wellesley; and the name of an imaginary typeface, Lilliput New Roman , from John Michaels, of Peabody. Ed De Vos also proposed ' microfishy — a play off microfiche but capturing my skepticism that what is written was ever intended to be read.' Ann Souto, of Portsmouth, N.H., wrote: 'These no-read-ums look like gnats, not words!' Harry Eisenberg, of Wayland, liked no-read-ums too, and Pat Nicholson, of Falmouth, thought the tried and true no-see-ums would do. Bob Smith, of Roslindale, shared a whole lexicon of specialized terminology from 'various arts and sciences,' only some of which I've included here: ' speckifications , from architecture; diminishing relearns , economics; diminuwindow , music; microlar degeneration, ophthalmology; and vanishing pointers , painting.' Diane Tosca, of Taunton, didn't actually have a suggestion, but that didn't stop her from having her say: 'Re minuscule instructions, I suffer from optikill whenever I have to read those lens busters, especially if they're directions for eye drops. Sorry for my vitreous humor, which my pupils noticed became cornea over the years.' Advertisement Noreen Barnes, of Acton, wrote: 'What to call the tiny text on packaging that needs magnification to be read? I might describe it as in-font-esimal — like infinitesimal , a big word for 'very small.'' And May DeViney, similarly inspired, came up with infinitextimal. Both of those are great, but I'm going to award bragging rights to infinitextimal , because it's easier to understand, whether written or spoken. Well done, May – congrats! Now Jack Stein, of Milton, writes: 'We need a word to describe a person who clearly is not competent to provide advice on a particular subject but insists on doing so anyway.' Send your ideas for Jack's word to me at
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The dangerous American fantasy of regime change in Iran
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Senior officials quickly tried to walk back Trump's threat. 'We don't want a regime change,' Vice President JD Vance said. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that bombing Iran 'was not and has not been about regime change.' Advertisement The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, however, further muddied the waters by suggesting that Iranians might 'rise up against this brutal terrorist regime' if it doesn't compromise with its enemies. 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution — which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way — why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for years?' Advertisement It was an odd formulation, since history shows no example of a people who rebelled because their leaders refused to pursue diplomacy. In any case Leavitt's boss quickly contradicted her — and himself. When a reporter asked President Trump if he was truly seeking regime change in Iran, he replied 'No' and added: 'Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos.' Mr. President: Congratulations on recognizing that essential truth. Please don't change your mind again. Iranians want a better government, but they want to shape it themselves. Regime change from within can bring new stability. Bombing cannot. Iranians have plenty of reasons to complain. Since 1979 they have been under the misrule of a repressive and corrupt clerical regime. It imposes a harsh code of conduct and dress on women and imprisons those who speak out for freedom. Great national challenges, from economic diversification to water supply, go unaddressed. Iranians, however, know perhaps better than any other people on earth that no matter how bad a regime is, the next one could be worse. The mullahs came to power in 1979 after Mohammad Reza Shah was overthrown. The coalition that swept the shah out was wildly diverse, from religious fanatics to Communists to liberal-minded democrats. No one knew what the post-shah regime would be, but all agreed that whatever emerged would be an improvement. They were wrong. Instead of going from bad to good, conditions went from bad to worse. If the mullahs are deposed, that could happen again. Many Iranians don't want to take that chance. Their own neighborhood provides sobering examples of the devastation that American-sponsored regime change can bring. Syria, Iraq, and Libya were all stable countries under dictatorship. People were able to live normal lives as long as they did not criticize the government. Anyone could walk the streets safely or sit in a cafe without worrying that a terror bomb might explode. Advertisement After American power led to the fall of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan leaders, democracy did not emerge. Syria is ruled by a former terrorist for whose arrest the United States once offered a $1 million bounty. Iraq is factionalized and dysfunctional. Libya is a failed state and breeding ground for terror. Iranians have painful collective memories of foreign intervention. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia and Britain effectively controlled Iran. They seized Iran's territories in what are now Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. Britain imposed an accord that gave it ownership of Iran's vast oil reserves. When democracy finally emerged in the 1950s and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, the United States and Britain organized a coup to depose him. That led to 25 years of royal dictatorship followed by more than 40 years under the mullahs. Many in Iran share two basic convictions: The regime is bad, but foreign powers should not try to overthrow it. That is not a contradiction. Political change that comes after bombing or invasion is usually for the worse. If it comes from within — if Iranians rather than outsiders shape Iran's fate — it will be more authentic, profound, and long-lasting. Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Cruel policy: Haitians' protected status is ending
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The Sept. 2 deadline forces families who have built lives here for more than a decade to face deportation to a country plagued by gang violence and political collapse. As Massachusetts residents, we cannot stand by while our neighbors and caregivers face the dire consequences of this cruel policy. We have the power to challenge this decision through every available means and advocate for permanent solutions that acknowledge the contributions and humanity of our Haitian community. Advocacy can make a difference. Advertisement James A. Lomastro Conway The writer is a member of Dignity Alliance of Massachusetts and has worked with people from Haiti both at the border, with Catholic Charities, and as a colleague in long-term care. Advertisement Hard-working people deserve our empathy, sanctuary If there is one nation whose migrants we should be protecting and providing help to, it is Haiti. The country is in the midst of an internal gang war. Meanwhile, I have watched people with Temporary Protected Status as they built a stone wall in front of my house, reroofed my home, and provided other backbreaking labor. These are hard-working, industrious people who deserve our empathy and sanctuary. Beau Schless Sudbury
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
A window for peacefully ending Iran's nuclear weapons program
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Gathering and interpreting intelligence is always a slow and complicated process, akin to discerning the elephant's size by touching one patch of its hide. Many touches will be needed before the true scope of the damage is accurately understood. Advertisement But that debate should not distract from a more important truth. Whatever the actual damage turns out to be, many experts believe that Iran almost certainly still retains the knowhow and Advertisement Hawkish Israeli and American opponents of the Iranian regime seem to believe that toppling that regime is the only way to end its nuclear ambitions for good. But despite its military power, the United States could not possibly ensure that overthrowing Tehran's theocracy would lead to a peaceful Iran. Violent, destabilizing chaos or an even more hawkish regime seem equally, if not more likely, scenarios. The best answer, then, is diplomacy. Focused, clear-eyed, determined diplomacy. And that diplomacy could begin soon if Iranian and US negotiators return to the bargaining table in the coming weeks, as Trump officials As president, Trump, for all his talk of loving the art of the deal, has shown little appetite or skill at the art form. But if he truly wants to be known as a peacemaker — and not someone who simply brokers short-term cease-fires — this is his opportunity. The administration has already made clear that it thinks a long-term denuclearization pact should include Tehran desperately wants sanctions lifted or at least eased. But it has drawn a red line regarding enrichment, which it maintains is necessary for nonmilitary purposes like fueling nuclear power plants. This is not a credible position, however, because the Iranians were clearly enriching uranium far beyond what was needed for civilian purposes. Convincing the regime's negotiators to yield on this point has been and will continue to be difficult. Advertisement What matters is that the administration resume those negotiations, and soon. Many experts and Trump critics argue that Iran, rather than being chastened by the recent attacks, may now hasten to build a bomb to ensure that Israel and the United States refrain from trying to obliterate the regime. A first step to Iran's restarting of its weapons program would be for it to withdraw from the But it is also possible that the regime, for all its defensive bluster, feels its back is to the wall and would be open to new talks. Israeli military action over the past year has decimated Iran's two main proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, rendering Tehran a far less potent threat to the region. The Israel Defense Forces' astonishingly effective assassinations of top Iranian military leaders and By design or sheer blind luck, then, Trump may have a real window of opportunity to force Iran's hand. He should not squander it by trying to maintain that no deal is needed because Iran's nuclear program is completely gone. In the past, he has expressed both a desire for a denuclearization deal and Advertisement The terrible irony of all this is that Trump now finds himself in the position of negotiating a deal that might wind up looking suspiciously like the Trump If talks with Iran resume, there will inevitably be much noise from hawks and doves, Republicans and Democrats, about the utility of diplomacy. But like the debate over damage assessments, that talk shouldn't be a distraction from the real goal: keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon now, in a few years, and forever. The hard part has just begun. For better or worse, Donald Trump is the man who must make a deal happen. Will he have the focus and stamina to reach a real, meaningful agreement? History would suggest no. But we should all be hoping that he can. Advertisement Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
a day ago
- General
- Boston Globe
What I think about when I think about the end of my life
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Mother left no instructions about what to do with her modest estate. She had lived near my brother and his wife, so they had the unhappy job of deciding what to do with her possessions. They shipped me the two things I wanted — a beautiful chest and a marble-topped table, still my most cherished pieces of furniture. Advertisement Those possessions aside, I am on a mission to deaccession. I am determined that my kids — one in Brazil, the other in Maryland — be able to concentrate on feeling sad when I die rather than having to figure out who gets what. So far, the only things I know what to do with are a shoebox full of family photos — one of my sons will surely want that — and my late husband Peter's doctoral thesis, requested by my grandson Leo, who just finished a logic course in college and asked for his grandfather's writing on that subject. (Oh, how I wish I could tell that to his grandfather!) Advertisement But what do I do with all the rest? Even though I am proud of my son Seth's latest book, 'Rediscovering Travel,' I don't need three copies of it. And why did I have two dozen wine glasses? I haven't had 24 people in my apartment since Peter died almost four years ago. I donated all but eight to a nearby church thrift shop, where the volunteers are getting used to seeing me. There is more to come! I certainly no longer need 24 dinner plates, four loaf pans, or the 1.34 gallon jug of Windex left in my last apartment by its previous owner. And will I ever wear that scoop-necked sparkling black top that has been in my closet for decades? The thrift shop volunteer ladies always ask me if I want to look around for bargains. My answer: 'Are you kidding?' In addition to the trips to the charity shop, I have done some formal planning. I have a will. I look at it from time to time to make sure it still reflects my wishes, which include being cremated. We scattered half of Peter's ashes in a garden in front of the property in Berlin where he was born and the other half under a favorite tree near Deep Creek Lake in Maryland, where I hope my ashes will join his. Advertisement I also filled out a 20-page document from Compassion and Choices, a nonprofit that 'works to improve patient autonomy and individual choice at the end of life.' That was painful work. Deciding which life-prolonging actions I would want to have under various circumstances was close to impossible. For example, if 'I have forgotten everything about my past, but still recognize those closest to me,' should I choose 'I want to live as long as possible' or 'Keep me comfortable while stopping all treatments and withholding food and water so that I can die peacefully'? Every time I checked a box, I worried that I might feel differently when the hypothetical became a reality. That Compassion and Choices document (signed by me plus two witnesses) is at the front of a filing cabinet in a folder labeled End-of-Life Wishes. That folder also contains my Massachusetts Health Care Proxy, a Massachusetts Durable Power of Attorney, and a document I wrote and signed in 2015 that includes, among other things, a wish to have any of my usable organs donated. In the meantime, I am living life to the fullest of my ability. I go to classes. I volunteer for causes I care about. I lift weights, and I walk two to four miles at least three times a week. A doctor told me recently that my healthy eating and exercising should allow me to live another 10 years, especially if I wear compression socks to ward off blood clots. One of the hardest things about being old is watching friends die or suffer debilitating illnesses. But when I think about three of my close friends who died in their 40s, I realize how lucky I am to have had the rich, long life I have led, even after surviving breast cancer and living with a blood cancer for the past 15 years. Advertisement But something will eventually get me, especially if I don't look both ways when crossing the one-way streets where bicycle lanes go both ways. And when the time comes, I will be ready.
