The Atlantic Festival Expands to New York City this September
The Atlantic will expand its flagship event, The Atlantic Festival, to New York City for the first time this fall, and host a one-day festival event in Washington, D.C., this spring. The Atlantic Festival will take place from Thursday, September 18, to Saturday, September 20, and be anchored at the Perelman Performing Arts Center in downtown Manhattan, with other venues to be announced. Additionally, the event in D.C., On the Future, will be held Tuesday, April 29, at Planet Word. The speaker lineups are to be announced. The expansion to New York City follows 16 years of The Atlantic Festival being held in Washington, D.C., and the growth of the event in scale, ambition, and attendance. The festival is the preeminent live exploration of The Atlantic's journalism, bringing together more than 100 speakers to take part in events that examine the state of business and tech; culture and the arts; politics and democracy; and climate and health––all moderated by Atlantic journalists. The event will also host theatrical and musical performances, book talks with authors and essayists, exclusive film screenings, and podcast tapings. Interviewees at the festival in recent years have included U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Jamie Dimon, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Spike Lee, Kerry Washington, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Nancy Pelosi, former Senator Mitt Romney, and dozens of sitting Cabinet secretaries, governors, and members of Congress. The festival has screened a number of films and series, including The Vietnam War, Boys State, and Lee, and featured live performances by Anna Deavere Smith, Yo-Yo Ma, Michael R. Jackson, and Chris Thile. Candace Montgomery, executive vice president of AtlanticLive, says of the move: 'We are thrilled to bring The Atlantic Festival to the cultural capital of the world. New York City is home to many Atlantic readers and subscribers and provides the festival with a global stage––giving us the opportunity to bring together fascinating speakers and build upon what has made the festival so successful.' Last year was the third consecutive year that The Atlantic was awarded the top honor of General Excellence by the National Magazine Awards; this year, the magazine is adding two more print issues, returning to monthly publication for the first time in more than two decades. The Atlantic is also hiring a number of writers and editors to grow its coverage of politics, defense, national security, and technology, in addition to health, science, and other areas. The 2025 Atlantic Festival is underwritten by Allstate, Destination DC, Genentech, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation at the Supporting Level. Please reach out with any questions or requests: press@theatlantic.com. On the Future: An Atlantic Festival Event April 29, 2025 D.C.'s Planet Word, and virtually The Atlantic Festival September 18–20, 2025 Perelman Performing Arts Center, and virtually
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Spoilt for choice with six brand new gardens to visit
A good few Christmases ago now, my mum bought me a wild plum tree as a present in a gift box. It has been planted in a large container on the patio ever since and seems to have flourished well. It looks stunning in the garden and is so pretty with its abundance of pale pink flowers, which blossom in early spring. In autumn the deep-red, sweet plums can be eaten straight from the tree! This deciduous tree naturally sheds its leaves every autumn and will remain in its dormant phase all winter. Fresh, new leaves will grow in spring and it's well worth the wait. This year I have been surprised to find some small fruit growing on it too for the very first time. Across Sussex this weekend, there are actually six brand new gardens opening for the National Garden Scheme. Kotamaki in Broad Oak, The Old Manor and Shorts Farm in Nutbourne, 8 Rushy Mead in West Broyle, Swallow Lodge and Talma in Horsham. Spoilt for choice! Look out the full details on the scheme's website at A couple of others you could visit are Alpines in High Street, Maresfield, near Uckfield, opening today (Saturday) from 11am to 5pm with entry £6. It is a largely level, one-acre garden, incorporating the ornamental and the edible. It offers a riot of colour and scent over many months, especially early summer with large and rampant mixed borders containing many scented roses. The other is Farleys Scuplture Garden in Muddles Green, Chiddingly, near Lewes opening especially for the scheme today from 10am to 4.30pm with entry £5. Designed as different themed rooms for sculpture, Farleys garden presents their permanent collection of works chosen by photographer Lee Miller and surrealist artist Roland Penrose alongside works by contemporary guest sculptors. Over the years, giants, goddesses, mythical creatures and Roland's own work has populated the garden in the company of work by their artist friends. You may recognise part of the garden as having been featured as the view through the window in the movie 'Lee' starring Kate Winslet. A really pretty plant in the garden is Chiastophyllum oppositifolium, it is an alpine succulent, closely related to sedum but more suited to shady gardens. It is a clump-forming perennial, and is ideal for using in pots too, as you can see from the one growing at Driftwood. Its unusual dangling yellow flowers contrast beautifully with the fleshy leaves, which change colour from mid-green to red. Also known as Lamb's Tail, Chiastophyllum oppositifolium is easy to grow and is also suitable for growing in rockeries and rock walls. A great statement plant. A couple of months ago, I mentioned a new plant that I'd recently added to the garden is Loropetalum chinense 'Fire Dance', which I've read is rarely seen in gardens. This handsome spreading shrub deserves to be much better known in my book. Its evergreen purple-bronze foliage provides fabulous year-round colour, and contrasts beautifully with the spidery, raspberry-red spring blooms, which are delicately scented and only adds to its charms. This magnificent hardy shrub is ideal for sheltered borders and woodland gardens where it makes an eye-catching specimen in spring and provides a beautiful backdrop for colourful summer perennials. Mine have both been planted in containers and are now looking radiant in the June sunshine. We have certainly had a tremendous number of birds visit the garden this year, with many nesting in the border hedging, two in particular are a pair of pigeons and many blackbirds, both of which are quite tame. The pigeons are often seen washing and drinking in the bird baths and corten steel pond. The love to perch on the rusty metal sculpture and one of the three arches across the central path as you can see. This year, the beach garden is a little wilder than it would be normally. I kept it neat and tidy up to the end of April when my surgery took place, but throughout May, I was really unable to get out there, while recovering from the knee replacement. To be honest, I'm not sure visitors will really notice but I certainly do and I like to keep all the plants in check. You can see the ballota, growing beneath the metal sphere, is about to take over. Also called false dittany, it is a small, bushy shrub that thrives in hot, sunny and dry conditions. It's aided by a covering of felty, silver hairs that reduce water loss. In late summer it produces flowering spears that bear whorls of small pink flowers and is perfect for growing in sunny gravel gardens, like mine, where it'll inhibit weed growth and combine well with plants like bearded irises and phlomis. Read more of Geoff's garden at of book a visit before 3rd August by emailing visitdriftwood@
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Worst Part of the Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Blocking a Lawsuit Against Gunmakers
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government of Mexico may not continue its lawsuit seeking to hold firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor civilly accountable for their role in causing cartel-driven gun violence in Mexico. Having taken the case at an unusually early stage in the litigation, and so working from an undeveloped factual record, all nine justices agreed that Mexico's current complaint does not even satisfactorily allege that the defendants have aided and abetted U.S. dealers who illegally sell guns to traffickers who then get them to the cartels in Mexico. What's worse, Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote separate concurrences in which they wade into the substantive law of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, offering unprecedented interpretations that would make it harder for victims of gun violence to try to hold firearms-makers and sellers responsible for their part in the harms they cause. All in all, Thursday's intervention from the Supreme Court means expanded impunity for the firearms industry—and thus the likelihood of more death and injury due to gun violence. PLCAA is a complex federal statute that specifies only a limited number of circumstances when victims of gun violence may bring a lawsuit against the maker or seller of a gun. Apart from these circumstances, PLCAA bans civil suits against industry members for harms arising from the criminal use of firearms. One ground for a civil action permitted by PLCAA arises when a firearms industry actor knowingly violates a statute applicable to the sale and marketing of firearms. When this happens, victims of a criminal shooting may sue the maker or seller of the firearms used, advancing any cause of action supported by facts of the case. Mexico's complaint alleged that the named firearms manufacturers and the named distributor aid and abet rogue dealers in the U.S. who illegally sell firearms to straw purchasers. These purchasers work with traffickers to illegally convey the arms to criminal cartels in Mexico. Aiding and abetting the sale of firearms to straw purchasers is itself a violation of the same statutes the rogue dealers are breaking. According to Mexico's complaint, the defendants' participation in breaking these law opens them to the full panoply of civil liability for the ensuing gun violence. Writing for the full court, Justice Elena Kagan announced that Mexico had not succeeded in stating a sufficiently plausible aiding-and-abetting claim. The court reversed the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that Mexico had properly pleaded aiding and abetting, opening the door to discovery and trial on the merits. The court's reversal is odd, because it interrupts the normal flow of civil litigation. Kagan criticized Mexico for its failure to specify precisely which rogue dealers the defendants supply and what exactly the defendants know about the dealers' illegal sales. But the ordinary way for a plaintiff to attain such precision is by conducting discovery, thus uncovering the facts necessary to proving their case to a jury. The court today preemptively shut down this process, in essence requiring plaintiffs bringing aiding-and-abetting claims to somehow know information that they would typically learn through pretrial discovery. It remains open to Mexico to revise its complaint to address the full court's criteria for properly pleading aiding and abetting, if Mexico can obtain the required information outside the legal process. Regardless, we know from Thursday's opinions that at least two justices—and quite possibly more—are poised to radically revise the body of PLCAA law lower federal courts have been developing. Thomas and Jackson both went beyond the issue of aiding and abetting to make pronouncements about the sorts of conduct and kinds of legal violations that trigger PLCAA's permission to bring civil actions against the firearms industry. Thomas wrote to cast doubt on whether PLCAA's reference to knowing violations of federal or state statutes includes violations that have not been formally found by a court or other regulatory body. No lower court that I know of has adopted this position. Indeed, no lower court opinions have even discussed the question. Yet Thomas took the opportunity to alert the firearms industry that 'it seems to [him] that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the 'violation.' ' He doesn't provide even a hint of an argument that the words of PLCAA support his impression. Thomas instead vaguely gestures to 'serious constitutional considerations' that would support his view. Jackson's concurrence is just peculiar. She argued that Mexico's complaint should be dismissed because Mexico did not identify particular statutory violations committed by the defendants. But the complaint notes several specific statutes it alleges the defendants have violated, including the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. The Gun Control Act expressly forbids selling guns to straw purchasers, buyers who purchase guns for somebody else who cannot lawfully by them. This is exactly what people who buy guns for traffickers do. The complaint also names state statutes it alleges the defendants have violated: the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (which applies to defendant Colt) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (which applies to Smith & Wesson). These statutes require the responsible sale and marketing of consumer goods, including firearms. Stocking rogue dealers with guns the manufacturers and the distributor know the dealer will sell to straw purchasers who will then supply them to traffickers breaks these laws. Ignoring the complaint's discussion of how the defendants' conduct violates the Gun Control Act, CUTPA, and MCPA, Jackson writes, 'Mexico merely faults the industry writ large for engaging in practices that legislatures and voters have declined to prohibit.' Jackson's disregard for what the complaint actually says is baffling. She claims to be concerned for PLCAA's purpose of establishing the 'primacy of the political branches—both state and federal—in deciding which duties to impose on the firearms industry.' But federal gun control laws and state consumer protection statutes like the ones Mexico pinpoints do just that: They codify legislatures' decisions as to the duties firearms manufacturers and sellers have. Perhaps Jackson regards the complaint as 'conclusory' because it does not itemize occasions when rogue dealers, intentionally supplied with firearms by the defendants, violated the Gun Control Act. Nor does the complaint itemize specific instances of when the defendants violated CUTPA or MCPA. But again, even if PLCAA calls for this, the necessary facts would ordinarily be gathered by the plaintiff through discovery. By demanding more specifics on the statutory violations alleged, Jackson's position comes close to Thomas': Only formally adjudicated violations can secure a complaint against a motion to dismiss. Writing from the right and left wings of the Supreme Court, Thomas and Jackson have emboldened Second Amendment absolutists to attack cases brought under the rubric of PLCAA. They invite lower court judges to grant early motions to dismiss. This is contrary to rule of law in an appellate system like ours. Our civil justice system permits plaintiffs to initially plead their cases comparatively generally and then to refine them in light of discovery. Quick dismissals of properly pleaded, if general, claims undermine the proper evolution of individual lawsuits. Worse, it strips all courts of the chance to identify and analyze relevant issues of law. Even if Thomas and Jackson have rightly detected questions raised by PLCAA—what constitutes a statutory violation and what does a plaintiff have to plead to preliminarily identify one—their concurrences foreclose usual judicial processes for answering them. The court as a whole and the two concurrences hurtle pell-mell toward making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs like Mexico to successfully plead their claims. Beyond that, the decision short-circuits the careful development of the law of PLCAA. The statute is a particularly intricate one, which already gave an industry that produces, markets, and sells exceptionally lethal products a large measure of impunity from any civil accountability for its harm-causing conduct. The opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos thwart case-by-case determination of PLCAA's applicability, a process that promotes careful explication of the law. This is a very poor ruling. It will put more firearms in the hands of criminals who will use them to wreak havoc. It will prevent victims of this havoc from seeking justice in court.
CNN
8 hours ago
- CNN
DOGE just got a green light to access your Social Security data. Here's what that means
When people think of Social Security, they typically think of monthly benefits — for the roughly 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive them today. But efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency this year to access the Social Security Administration's data systems should conjure up thoughts of data on hundreds of millions of people. Why? Because the SSA's multiple data systems contain an extensive trove of personal information on most people living in the United States today — as well as those who have died. While a lower federal court had blocked DOGE's efforts to access such data — which it argued it needs in order to curtail waste, fraud and abuse — the Supreme Court lifted that order on Friday, allowing DOGE to access the data for now. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In her opinion, Jackson wrote, 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' she added. The personal data the Social Security Adminstration has on most Americans runs 'from cradle to grave,' said Kathleen Romig, who used to work at the SSA, first as a retirement policy analyst and more recently as a senior adviser in the Office of the Commissioner. DOGE was created unilaterally by President Donald Trump with the goal of 'modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity,' according to his executive order. To date, the group has caused chaos and intimidation at a number of federal agencies where it has sought to take control and shut down various types of spending. It is also the subject of various lawsuits questioning its legal right to access wholesale the personal data of Americans on highly restricted government IT systems and to fire groups of federal workers in the manner it has. Here's just a partial list of the data the SSA systems likely have about you: your name, Social Security number, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, your parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions if you apply for disability benefits, and use of Medicare after a certain age, which the SSA may periodically check to ascertain whether you're still alive. Other types of personal information also may be obtained or matched through the SSA's data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. Information on your assets and living arrangements also may be gathered if you apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is meant to help those with very limited income. As with the IRS data systems to which DOGE has also sought access, the SSA systems are old, complex, interconnected and run on programming language developed decades ago. If you make a change in one system, it could trip up another if you don't know what you're doing, said Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And, just as at the IRS, there are concerns that if DOGE team members get access to the SSA systems and seek to make changes directly or through an SSA employee, they could cause technical errors or base their decisions on incorrect understandings of the data. For example, multibillionaire CEO Elon Musk, a driving force at DOGE, had incorrectly claimed that SSA is making payments to millions of dead people. His claim appeared to be based on the so-called Numident list, which is a limited collection of personal data, Romig said. The list includes names, Social Security numbers, and a person's birth and death dates. But the Numident list does not reflect the death dates for 18.9 million people who were born in 1920 or earlier. That's a known problem, which the Social Security inspector general in a 2023 report already recommended the agency correct. That same report, however, also noted that 'almost none of the 18.9 million number holders currently receive SSA payments.' And making any decisions based on mistaken interpretations could create real-world problems for individuals. For example, Romig said, there are different types of Social Security numbers assigned — eg, for US citizens, for noncitizens with work authorization and for people on student visas who do not have work authorization. But a person's status can change over time. For example, someone on a student visa may eventually get work authorization. But it's up to the individual to update the SSA on their status. If they don't do so immediately or maybe not even for years, the lists on SSA systems may not be fully up to date. So it's easy to see how a new entity like DOGE, unfamiliar with the complexity of Social Security's processes, might make a quick decision affecting a particular group of people on a list that itself may not be current. Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has been a leading proponent of addressing Social Security's long-term funding shortfall. And he is all for rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. But, Blahous noted, 'best estimates of improper payments in Social Security are less than 1% of the program's outlays. I've been concerned that this particular conversation is fueling profound misimpressions about Social Security and the policy challenges surrounding it.' SSA's data systems are housed in locked rooms, and permission to view — never mind alter — information on them has always been highly restricted, Romig said, noting that she was fingerprinted and had to pass a background check before being allowed to view data for her research while at the agency — and it could only be data that had no personally identifiable information. Given the variety of personal data available, there are also a number of federal privacy and other laws limiting the use and dissemination of such information. Such laws are intended to prevent not only improper use or leaks of the data by individuals, but abuse of power by government, according to the Center on Democracy and Technology. DOGE's arrival at the SSA resulted in a number of seasoned employees leaving the agency, including Michelle King, a long-time career service executive who briefly served as acting commissioner from January 20 until February 16. She resigned after DOGE staffers attempted to access sensitive government records. In her place, SSA employee Lee Dudek was named acting director. Dudek put out a statement on SSA's 'Commitment to Agency Transparency and Protecting Benefits and Information' when he came on. In it, he noted that DOGE personnel: a) 'cannot make changes to agency systems, benefit payments, or other information'; b) 'only have read access' to data; c) 'do not have access to data related to a court ordered temporary restraining order, current or future'; and d) 'must follow the law and if they violate the law they will be referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.' CNN's Alayna Treene and John Fritze contributed to this report.
