What we know:
—The FAA says American Airlines Flight 383 blew a tire while taking off from Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.
—Video posted on Twitter shows thick black smoke emerging from the aircraft. All passengers are reportedly safe.
—We’re live-blogging the news below. All updates are in Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -4).
A spokesman for American Airlines says seven passengers and one flight attendant were injured after their plane caught fire at O’Hare International Airport.
They were taken to the hospital. Their condition is unknown.
The rest of the passengers were given a new flight to Miami.
There apparently was a fire drill earlier Friday, which led to confusion initially about what was happening at O’Hare.
@juicereddi Our fire training center is active today. No need for alarm.
— O'Hare Intl. Airport (@fly2ohare) October 28, 2016
There’s now video of the plane:
Video of incident Involving an American Airlines flight at Chicago O'Hare ⚠ pic.twitter.com/k51a0kJ9Jc
— Flight Alerts ⚠ (@FlightAlerts777) October 28, 2016
The Federal Aviation Administration has more information on what happened:
✈ Traffic Alert: Runway Closed @fly2ohare (ORD) due to disabled aircraft - Expect Delays - check w/your airline for updated flight status.
— The FAA (@FAANews) October 28, 2016
FAA Statement: @AmericanAir Flight 383, B767, ORD>MIA, blew a tire at 2:35PM CT & aborted take off. Passengers deplaned. FAA Investigating.
— The FAA (@FAANews) October 28, 2016
@jmmccarthy2002 @AmericanAir There is a ground stop in effect for flights arriving into ORD - Disabled aircraft located on RWY 28R.
— The FAA (@FAANews) October 28, 2016
But earlier Friday authorities had planned a drill at the airport.
Don't be alarmed! The Chicago Fire Department at O'Hare is doing practice fires today on the airfield fire pit! @fly2ohare @Chicago_Scanner pic.twitter.com/Qfgr5RyMOI
— ORD Airport Insider (@ORDInsider) October 28, 2016
The fire department said an aircraft was down at O’Hare, the world’s busiest airport.
EMERGENCY AIRCRAFT DOWN AT OHARE 2 11 RESPONSE details to follow
— Chicago Fire Media (@CFDMedia) October 28, 2016
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.
The scene is one many of us have somewhere in our family history: Dozens of people celebrating Thanksgiving or some other holiday around a makeshift stretch of family tables—siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, great-aunts. The grandparents are telling the old family stories for the 37th time. “It was the most beautiful place you’ve ever seen in your life,” says one, remembering his first day in America. “There were lights everywhere … It was a celebration of light! I thought they were for me.”
To hear more feature stories, get the Audm iPhone app.
The oldsters start squabbling about whose memory is better. “It was cold that day,” one says about some faraway memory. “What are you talking about? It was May, late May,” says another. The young children sit wide-eyed, absorbing family lore and trying to piece together the plotline of the generations.
How should Democrats fight against a president who has no moral or legal compass?
Democratic primary voters care deeply about electability. What most want is simple: a candidate who can beat President Donald Trump in November. So they worry about whether former Vice President Joe Biden will inspire young people, and about whether Senator Bernie Sanders will scare away old people. They debate whether a political revolution is necessary to energize the base, or whether the revolution will dissuade independents. Will the historic candidacy of a woman or a gay man take off or implode?
But these concerns about policy and broad cultural appeal are secondary to the true “electability” crisis facing whichever Democrat wins the nomination: He or she will need to run against a president seemingly prepared, and empowered, to lie and cheat his way to reelection.
How new technologies and techniques pioneered by dictators will shape the 2020 election
Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET on February 10, 2020.
One day last fall, I sat down to create a new Facebook account. I picked a forgettable name, snapped a profile pic with my face obscured, and clicked “Like” on the official pages of Donald Trump and his reelection campaign. Facebook’s algorithm prodded me to follow Ann Coulter, Fox Business, and a variety of fan pages with names like “In Trump We Trust.” I complied. I also gave my cellphone number to the Trump campaign, and joined a handful of private Facebook groups for MAGA diehards, one of which required an application that seemed designed to screen out interlopers.
To hear more feature stories, get the Audm iPhone app.
The president’s reelection campaign was then in the midst of a multimillion-dollar ad blitz aimed at shaping Americans’ understanding of the recently launched impeachment proceedings. Thousands of micro-targeted ads had flooded the internet, portraying Trump as a heroic reformer cracking down on foreign corruption while Democrats plotted a coup. That this narrative bore little resemblance to reality seemed only to accelerate its spread. Right-wing websites amplified every claim. Pro-Trump forums teemed with conspiracy theories. An alternate information ecosystem was taking shape around the biggest news story in the country, and I wanted to see it from the inside.
Many in the party elite remain deeply skeptical of the Vermont senator, but rank-and-file voters do not share that hesitation.
Judging by media coverage and the comments of party luminaries, you might think Democrats are bitterly polarized over Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid. Last month, Hillary Clinton declared that “nobody likes” the Vermont senator. Last week, James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, said he was “scared to death” of the Sanders campaign, which he likened to “a cult.” Since the beginning of the year, news organization after news organization has speculated that Sanders’s success may set off a Democratic “civil war.”
But polls of Democratic voters show nothing of the sort. Among ordinary Democrats, Sanders is strikingly popular, even with voters who favor his rivals. He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors. On paper, he appears well positioned to unify the party should he win its presidential nomination.
Why are many dating practices a throwback to an earlier era?
Heterosexual women of a progressive bent often say they want equal partnerships with men. But dating is a different story entirely. The women I interviewed for a research project and book expected men to ask for, plan, and pay for dates; initiate sex; confirm the exclusivity of a relationship; and propose marriage. After setting all of those precedents, these women then wanted a marriage in which they shared the financial responsibilities, housework, and child care relatively equally. Almost none of my interviewees saw these dating practices as a threat to their feminist credentials or to their desire for egalitarian marriages. But they were wrong.
As a feminist sociologist, I’ve long been interested in how gender influences our behavior in romantic relationships. I was aware of the research that showed greater gains in gender equality at work than at home. Curious to explore some of the reasons behind these numbers, I spent the past several years talking with people about their dating lives and what they wanted from their marriages and partnerships. The heterosexual and LGBTQ people I interviewed—more than 100 in total—were highly educated, professional-track young adults who lived in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. This was not a cross section of America, for certain, but I did expect to hear progressive views. Most wanted equal partnerships where they could share both financial and family responsibilities. Almost everyone I interviewed was quite vocal in their support of gender equality and didn’t shy away from the feminist label.
Virology isn’t politics.
When a senior White House aide would brief President Donald Trump in 2018 about an Ebola-virus outbreak in central Africa, it was plainly evident that hardships roiling a far-flung part of the world didn’t command his attention. He was zoning out. “It was like talking to a wall,” a person familiar with the matter told me.
Now a new coronavirus that originated in China is confronting him with a potential pandemic, a problem that Trump seems ill-prepared to meet. A crisis that is heading into its third month could draw out every personal and managerial failing that the president has shown to this point. Much of what he’s said publicly about the virus has been wrong, a consequence of downplaying any troubles on his watch. He has long stoked fears that foreigners entering the United States bring disease. Now he may double down on xenophobic suspicions. He has hollowed out federal agencies and belittled expertise, prioritizing instead his own intuition and the demands of his political base. But he’ll need to rely on a bureaucracy he’s maligned to stop the virus’s spread.
For grieving families, the photos preserve the only memories they have of their child.
Since 1997, Todd Hochberg has been going to hospitals to photograph families after the death of a baby. These requests come at all times of day and night—more often at night, it seems, when it is a stillbirth. If he can, Hochberg will be there for the birth itself, and then in the emotional hours after as parents see and hold and even bathe their dead child while saying goodbye.
For parents, these photographs document one of the worst days of their life. But they also represent the few cherished memories they will ever have of their child. Hospitals used to whisk stillborn babies away from their parents, but they now recognize the importance of memories in grieving. Many offer photography, along with mementos such as footprints and locks of hair. Organizations such as Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep also have a network of volunteer photographers around the country.
I've tried therapy, drugs, and booze. Here’s how I came to terms with the nation's most common mental illness.
I’ve finally settled on a pre-talk regimen that enables me to avoid the weeks of anticipatory misery that the approach of a public-speaking engagement would otherwise produce.
Let’s say you’re sitting in an audience and I’m at the lectern. Here’s what I’ve likely done to prepare. Four hours or so ago, I took my first half milligram of Xanax. (I’ve learned that if I wait too long to take it, my fight-or-flight response kicks so far into overdrive that medication is not enough to yank it back.) Then, about an hour ago, I took my second half milligram of Xanax and perhaps 20 milligrams of Inderal. (I need the whole milligram of Xanax plus the Inderal, which is a blood-pressure medication, or beta-blocker, that dampens the response of the sympathetic nervous system, to keep my physiological responses to the anxious stimulus of standing in front of you—the sweating, trembling, nausea, burping, stomach cramps, and constriction in my throat and chest—from overwhelming me.) I likely washed those pills down with a shot of scotch or, more likely, vodka, the odor of which is less detectable on my breath. Even two Xanax and an Inderal are not enough to calm my racing thoughts and to keep my chest and throat from constricting to the point where I cannot speak; I need the alcohol to slow things down and to subdue the residual physiological eruptions that the drugs are inadequate to contain. In fact, I probably drank my second shot—yes, even though I might be speaking to you at, say, 9 in the morning—between 15 and 30 minutes ago, assuming the pre-talk proceedings allowed me a moment to sneak away for a quaff.
Some of the top and winning images from this year’s landscape-photography competition
More than 3,400 entries were received in this year’s landscape-photography competition, from professional and amateur photographers around the world. Judges of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year contest narrowed the field down to a “Top 101,” then further to award several category prizes and the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award, which went to the Russian photographer Oleg Ershov for his images of England and Iceland. The organizers have been kind enough to share some of this year’s top and winning images below.
Jeff Bezos has pledged more money to battling climate change than anyone ever has before. But where will it go?
Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon and the world’s richest man, announced yesterday that he would give $10 billion to fight climate change.
He didn’t say much else. It’s not clear where the money will go, or how fast Bezos will spend it. He didn’t lay out a theory of change. In a 127-word Instagram post that doubled as a press release, he said only that a new entity, the Bezos Earth Fund, would support “scientists, activists, [and] NGOs—any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world.”
This gift is undeniably important. It could, by some estimates, virtually double the amount spent on climate change by American philanthropists today. And it will likely reveal something counterintuitive about the state of global climate action. Even if you believe, as Bezos does, that climate change is “the greatest threat facing our planet,” spending $10 billion to fight it is still pretty difficult.
In 1969, two “conventional” married couples conducted an unwieldy social experiment.
As a Border Patrol agent, Raul Rodriguez deported thousands of people. Now he faces his own deportation.
When Mike Nayna uploaded a viral video of a hate-speech tirade, he thought he was being a Good Samaritan. Then, the narrative got out of his hands.
/media/video/img/2020/02/Digilante/original.png)