Latest news with #Pulitzer-winning
New Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
The American dream was stolen long before Trump
Even within the US, people have long felt that the American dream has been 'stolen' because wealth distribution in the past half-century has become skewed. A minuscule percentage of Wall Street, Ivy League and Silicon Valley types are accused of having rigged the system. They argue that between the 1950s and the 1970s, the American dream had created 'shared prosperity' and expanded the middle class. In 2012, Pulitzer-winning journalist Hedrick Smith even wrote a bestseller titled Who stole the American dream? Philosophers like Michael Sandel at Harvard have also questioned the meritocratic system—an inevitable component of the dream. Historians and commentators have seen the 1970s as a decade of transition in the US when parts of the powerful American establishment started rethinking its welfarist idealism of the 1950s through the 1960s. They were plotting to impart a harder pro-business, laissez faire identity to the nation. This put the 'share-the-wealth ethic' under a cloud and aided the burglary of the American dream, eventually. From being an 'empire of production', it started moving towards becoming an empress of consumption. The loss of jobs argument that began then haunts America to this day. In India, of course, the 1970s was the reverse. The Nehruvian-socialist dream had taken a crude turn. We were into nationalisation of nearly everything. The state was the final arbiter of nearly everything from industrial licences to prescribing the size of the family that one should raise. The Emergency was a part of this authoritarian micro-management of a nation's destiny. India's middle-class expansion came late, only in the 1990s. That is when we borrowed the American dream that was already in a crisis. Even during the 1950s and 1960s America, although one section imagined the full bloom of the American dream, racial inequalities and segregation ensured the dream was a truncated, one-dimensional affair that cleverly brushed everything that disturbed the formulation under the carpet. Those who dreamt the American dream when the first waves of big immigration happened from India, notoriously labelled the 'brain drain', constructed the dream very differently. Economist J N Bhagwati even spoke of a 'brain drain tax'. They did not abandon their motherland, but had a constructive narrative that was about scouting for technology, enterprise and education to take back. Interestingly, rural development was a running theme among the conscientious who had migrated in the 1960s and 1970s. All this, of course, changed in the mid-1980s when a new generation of Indian-Americans, quite naturally, grew independent of their obligations back home. Assimilation in American society became a far greater pull. In the next few decades, India became an important member of the global technology network. For Indians, the American dream changed yet again. The diaspora perhaps imagined that the 'brown' had escaped the humiliations of the 'black' and had found a seat at the high table of American destiny. They had become an aspirational class of power and influence back in India, which had become a back office for the American dream. Sugata Srinivasaraju | Senior journalist and author of The Conscience Network: A Chronicle of Resistance to a Dictatorship (Views are personal) (sugata@
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Book Review: The Great Big Beautiful Life is steeped in mystery but soggy on romance
Sometimes you get yourself a big, fat, shiny book and decide you're going to love it. But a quarter of the way through your reading marathon, you realise that your interest may not necessarily be waning, but... is this really what you signed up for? Author Emily Henry's Great Big Beautiful Life has the grandiose, the twists and the trappings. But if you pick up this book in the hopes of flipping through a nemeses-to-lovers trope, alert: you're going to be left high and dry. Past the point of the falsely-packaged 'romance', Great Big Beautiful Life offers just about enough to have the Kindle-bound Sherlocks make it through to the end — a reclusive heiress, ironclad NDAs and a dance-off, albeit of words — Emily knows her craft well enough to have you not abandon the read halfway through. But the final payoff comes not from the mind-bending exhilaration you expect from a mystery read, but more like the self-assuring 'ah' at the end of a fairly predictable slow burn. One thing Emily aces in, is in her attempt of character building and painting the choicest picture, she uses words that aide her narrative. Alice brings the spark and her Pulitzer-winning opponent Hayden brings some empty depth. Yet anything around them, let alone between them, is drowned in the winding, spotlight-hogging lore of Margaret Ives' family. More than anything, what the book falls short on is expectations. You walk in expecting Emily to deliver a subtly racy romance against the backdrop of warring words and blue oceans. You get instead are both, along with ample visual reprieve, but their merit stands robbed owing to the hollow, almost forced spot that Alice and Hayden are put in. The crescendo of a good romance novel – though this isn't really what that is – is the big realisation of having fallen head over heels. But here's the thing, more than Alice herself, you will be confused as to how she got there! If you walk into this novel dismissing any expectations of a slow burn romance then it will be a fairly engaging read. But, if a slew of stolen glances and fluttering tension is what you're really after then you're better off without it. Either which way, this book stands best defined by its lost potential. Title: Great Big Beautiful Life Author: Emily Henry Publisher: Penguin Random House India Price: ₹899
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Who is Glenn Greenwald? Known for Snowden revelations, expresses no regrets over leaked sex tapes
Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist best known for exposing the U.S. government's mass surveillance practices, is once again making headlines, this time over a deeply personal matter. On May 30, 2025, videos showing Greenwald in intimate, private settings were leaked online without his knowledge or consent. In a statement on X, Greenwald confirmed the videos' authenticity, condemned the leak as 'maliciously political,' and defended the content, saying all acts were consensual. 'I have no embarrassment or regret about them,' he wrote. While the footage sparked viral interest, Greenwald insisted the real issue is the weaponization of privacy for political ends. The Snowden revelations and Pulitzer-winning work Greenwald rose to global prominence in 2013 after publishing a series of groundbreaking reports in The Guardian based on classified documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden . These documents revealed the extent of domestic and international surveillance conducted by the U.S. government under President Barack Obama. Snowden, who initially contacted Greenwald anonymously in late 2012, passed along a trove of classified documents that showed the U.S. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo government was collecting vast amounts of metadata and personal communication records, including from American citizens, often without warrants. Greenwald's reports were published in The Guardian, beginning with a bombshell revelation on June 5, 2013, detailing how Verizon was ordered to provide the NSA with phone records for millions of Americans. These revelations triggered a worldwide debate over privacy, civil liberties, and the role of intelligence agencies in democratic societies. Greenwald, along with his collaborators, faced both praise and intense scrutiny for the disclosures. In 2014, The Guardian and The Washington Post jointly received the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for their work on the NSA surveillance story. Greenwald's involvement also led to his appearance in the Oscar-winning documentary Citizenfour by Laura Poitras, and he was portrayed by actor Zachary Quinto in Oliver Stone's 2016 film Snowden. Glenn Greenwald's early journalism and independent voice Before the Snowden story catapulted him to global prominence, Greenwald had already established himself as a powerful voice in independent journalism. In 2005, he started the blog Unclaimed Territory, where he focused on controversial issues like the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The blog earned the 2005 Koufax Award for Best New Blog. In 2007, he joined Salon as a contributing writer, transitioning his blog to the media platform. At Salon, Greenwald continued to tackle controversial subjects, including the 2001 anthrax attacks and the nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director. His opposition to Brennan's nomination, rooted in concerns about torture and civil liberties, contributed to Brennan temporarily withdrawing from consideration. Greenwald's strong advocacy for whistleblowers became evident in his vocal support for Chelsea Manning. In a 2010 article, he described Manning as a hero who acted out of conscience, likening her to Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. His stances often defied party lines, earning him a reputation as a journalist who prioritized principles over political affiliations. The Intercept and move to Substack In 2014, Greenwald co-founded The Intercept with filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Jeremy Scahill. Funded by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept was envisioned as a platform for fearless, independent investigative journalism. There, Greenwald continued to report on national security issues and political controversies. However, in 2020, Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, claiming that editors had attempted to censor an article critical of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. He cited a lack of editorial independence and launched his own newsletter on Substack, where he now publishes content free from institutional constraints. As of 2025, he has over 324,000 paid and free subscribers, making him one of Substack's most influential voices. Personal life and response to the leak Greenwald's personal and professional lives have long been intertwined. He lived in Brazil with his husband, David Miranda, a leftist Brazilian congressman and LGBTQ rights advocate. The couple adopted two boys in 2018. Miranda died in 2023 due to complications from a gastrointestinal infection, a loss that deeply affected Greenwald. The recent leak of his private videos, Greenwald stated, represents a criminal invasion of privacy aimed at discrediting him for political reasons. 'Obviously it can be uncomfortable and unpleasant when your private behavior is made public against your will,' he wrote on X. 'But the only wrongdoing here is the criminal and malicious publication of the videos.' Despite the intrusion, Greenwald remains defiant and unapologetic — a stance consistent with the fearless, often controversial career he has built over the past two decades.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
Editorial: A reminder of the state's ultimate power — Indiana executes again
Indiana's second execution in 15 years is a grim reminder of the dual tragedy at the heart of capital punishment — the horrific violence inflicted by killers, and the irrevocable power the state wields in taking a life in return. This board has long questioned whether any human system is equipped to administer such final justice, a stance shaped by decades of reflection and the Pulitzer-winning work of former Tribune Editorial Board member Cornelia Grumman, who challenged readers to confront the fallibility beneath the death penalty's finality. Before Illinois ended capital punishment in 2011, this board urged reforms such as videotaping interrogations and banning executions of people with intellectual disabilities. 'Now's the time to get it right. Get it right or get rid of it,' we wrote in 2002. Former Gov. Pat Quinn listened, and we applauded. Capital punishment can feel far removed in Illinois these days. Yet this execution, carried out Tuesday just across the state border in Michigan City, Indiana, makes it feel closer to home. Prisoner Benjamin Ritchie was 45 when he died at 12:46 a.m. Tuesday, punishment for killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2000. His was one of 12 executions scheduled across eight states this year, including others this week in Texas and Tennessee. Lost in the bigger conversation about capital punishment are the victims, a frustration that eats away at families grieving loved ones. Officer William Toney, a husband and father, was a day from his 32nd birthday when Ritchie shot and killed him. His daughters, just 18 months and 4 years old at the time, grew up without him — a burden no child should bear. We do not pass judgment on those whose loved ones have been taken by violence, and we recognize that for grieving families, life may feel easier when the person responsible is gone. But as a society, we do have to grapple with how our justice system handles punishment for those who commit the most grievous crimes. This board has long held grave concerns when it comes to the death penalty. Indiana is one of 27 other states that continue to practice the death penalty, and is one of just two states that bans reporters from being present at executions. Even in states where the death penalty remains on the books, legal, ethical and political hurdles have led to yearslong delays in carrying out executions. Indiana's 15-year pause in executions stemmed largely from difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies, especially in Europe, refused to supply drugs for use in executions. Pharmaceutical companies are right to have qualms about manufacturing products used to end life, and they're not alone. Too many people have been sent to death row, only to be exonerated years later. Northwestern University research found that 20 people sentenced to death in Illinois between the 1970s and 1990s were later exonerated. Beyond the system's fallibility is the moral dimension of capital punishment. People have long used the Bible to justify both sides of this issue. The Old Testament is full of the type of justice that gives credence to pro-death penalty advocates, while the compassion of Christ provides evidence for those against the death penalty. We're not theologians, but Chicago's own Robert Prevost — now Pope Leo XIV — once shared his view on his now-deleted personal Twitter account. 'It's time to end the death penalty,' he posted a decade ago. That view is consistent with Catholic teaching from our recent popes, including Francis, who called capital punishment 'inadmissible,' and John Paul II, who viewed the death penalty as an option of last resort in the event that no other option to protect society existed, adding 'such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.' Human justice is never perfect. That's why the death penalty is so dangerous. When a punishment allows no room for error, the question remains: Why are we still willing to take that risk? Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
21-05-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: A reminder of the state's ultimate power — Indiana executes again
Indiana's second execution in 15 years is a grim reminder of the dual tragedy at the heart of capital punishment — the horrific violence inflicted by killers, and the irrevocable power the state wields in taking a life in return. This board has long questioned whether any human system is equipped to administer such final justice, a stance shaped by decades of reflection and the Pulitzer-winning work of former Tribune Editorial Board member Cornelia Grumman, who challenged readers to confront the fallibility beneath the death penalty's finality. Before Illinois ended capital punishment in 2011, this board urged reforms such as videotaping interrogations and banning executions of people with intellectual disabilities. 'Now's the time to get it right. Get it right or get rid of it,' we wrote in 2002. Former Gov. Pat Quinn listened, and we applauded. Capital punishment can feel far removed in Illinois these days. Yet this execution, carried out Tuesday just across the state border in Michigan City, Indiana, makes it feel closer to home. Prisoner Benjamin Ritchie was 45 when he died at 12:46 a.m. Tuesday, punishment for killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2000. His was one of 12 executions scheduled across eight states this year, including others this week in Texas and Tennessee. Lost in the bigger conversation about capital punishment are the victims, a frustration that eats away at families grieving loved ones. Officer William Toney, a husband and father, was a day from his 32nd birthday when Ritchie shot and killed him. His daughters, just 18 months and 4 years old at the time, grew up without him — a burden no child should bear. We do not pass judgment on those whose loved ones have been taken by violence, and we recognize that for grieving families, life may feel easier when the person responsible is gone. But as a society, we do have to grapple with how our justice system handles punishment for those who commit the most grievous crimes. This board has long held grave concerns when it comes to the death penalty. Indiana is one of 27 other states that continue to practice the death penalty, and is one of just two states that bans reporters from being present at executions. Even in states where the death penalty remains on the books, legal, ethical and political hurdles have led to yearslong delays in carrying out executions. Indiana's 15-year pause in executions stemmed largely from difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies, especially in Europe, refused to supply drugs for use in executions. Pharmaceutical companies are right to have qualms about manufacturing products used to end life, and they're not alone. Too many people have been sent to death row, only to be exonerated years later. Northwestern University research found that 20 people sentenced to death in Illinois between the 1970s and 1990s were later exonerated. Beyond the system's fallibility is the moral dimension of capital punishment. People have long used the Bible to justify both sides of this issue. The Old Testament is full of the type of justice that gives credence to pro-death penalty advocates, while the compassion of Christ provides evidence for those against the death penalty. We're not theologians, but Chicago's own Robert Prevost — now Pope Leo XIV — once shared his view on his now-deleted personal Twitter account. 'It's time to end the death penalty,' he posted a decade ago. That view is consistent with Catholic teaching from our recent popes, including Francis, who called capital punishment 'inadmissible,' and John Paul II, who viewed the death penalty as an option of last resort in the event that no other option to protect society existed, adding 'such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.' Human justice is never perfect. That's why the death penalty is so dangerous. When a punishment allows no room for error, the question remains: Why are we still willing to take that risk?
