PR in the Philippines

Certain Medicare beneficiaries are slated to encounter a novel “prior authorization” requirement as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) tests its extensively debated “” model. This initiative, which CMS unveiled in June, mandates that Original Medicare recipients secure pre-approval prior to accessing specific medical services. The pilot program is scheduled to operate in only six states. Medicare serves as health insurance for individuals 65 years of age and above. Younger individuals may also qualify for this coverage if they have a disability, End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), or ALS. Nearly Americans rely on this government-funded program for their healthcare insurance requirements. Consequently, any modifications to the program are expected to have widespread repercussions. In early August, a group of Democrat legislators sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz—also known as Dr. Oz—expressing worries that the suggested prior authorization procedures could “likely restrict beneficiaries’ access to care” and “foster perverse incentives that prioritize profit above patients.” With increasing interest, here is essential information regarding the Medicare pilot program. What does the Medicare prior approval pilot entail? According to the CMS, the WISeR model,, is designed to “evaluate methods for delivering an enhanced and accelerated prior authorization process compared to Original Medicare’s current procedures” with the goal of “assisting patients and providers in preventing unnecessary or unsuitable care” and simultaneously “protecting federal taxpayer funds.” The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that Medicare expended as much as $5.8 billion in 2022 on “unneeded or unsuitable services offering minimal to no clinical advantage.” The WISeR model is purportedly designed to address this issue, engaging private firms to assess if AI can manage the prior authorization procedure that ascertains an Original Medicare recipient's—also referred to as Traditional Medicare—eligibility for health service funding. This model will specifically focus on services that CMS deems “especially susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse.” The CMS notice stated, “These items and services encompass, though are not limited to, skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis.” CMS has confirmed its intent to exclude several categories of services from the WISeR pilot, including “inpatient-only services, emergency services, and services that would present a significant risk to patients if considerably postponed.” Dr. Oz stated, “CMS is dedicated to eradicating fraud, waste, and abuse, and the WISeR Model will assist in eliminating inefficiency within Original Medicare.” This model is not expected to affect individuals enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which offers additional benefits and coverage beyond the standard Original Medicare program, and already incorporates a prior authorization process. Private entities participating in this program will receive compensation determined by their “capacity to diminish unnecessary or uncovered services,” which largely equates to the amount of money they can conserve in healthcare expenditures. When is the Medicare pilot program scheduled to commence? The WISeR model is slated for launch on January 1, 2026, and is projected to “operate for six performance years” to assess its efficacy, concluding on December 21, 2031. Which states are anticipated to be affected? Per the CMS, the WISeR pilot will be implemented in six states across the United States. Washington, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona are expected to experience its effects. Firms chosen for the program, tasked with conducting AI-powered prior authorization, will be allocated distinct geographical areas for their operations. What criticisms have been directed at the new Medicare model? Democrat legislators expressed their concerns to Dr. Oz on August 27, articulating fears that the forthcoming prior approval procedures might lead to harmful delays adversely affecting patients. The 17 Democrat signatories stated, “WISeR is likely to restrict beneficiaries’ access to care, escalate the burden on our already strained healthcare workforce, and foster perverse incentives that prioritize profit over patients,” drawing parallels to how prior authorization has affected clients filing claims under Medicare Advantage. The legislators contended that “numerous patients opt for Traditional Medicare due to their understanding that their care decisions will be made by their doctors, rather than by insurance companies.” The letter, endorsed by figures such as California Rep. and Illinois Rep. , underscored worries regarding the profit motives linked to prior authorization, a process also employed by private insurance firms that commonly engage external entities to perform such evaluations. In their address to Dr. Oz, Democrats critiqued the Trump Administration, emphasizing that government officials had previously acknowledged the problems associated with prior authorization. On June 23, Republican lawmakers, alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., aimed to “rectify the flawed prior authorization system.” North Carolina Congressman Greg Murphy, drawing upon his decades of experience as a physician, remarked: “I observed the absurd and perpetually growing impediments created by insurance companies, leading to delayed or denied patient care.” Referring to this concession from the Republican party, the Democrats penned: “Yet, barely a week following these declarations, CMS presented a new proposition to escalate the application of prior authorization in a form of health coverage that had rarely employed this strategy previously, substituting medical expertise with an algorithm intended to maximize care denials for greater profits.” TIME has contacted CMS for its response concerning these issues.

A group of 60 U.K. lawmakers, representing multiple parties, has alleged that Google DeepMind has violated international agreements for the secure development of artificial intelligence. This accusation was made in a letter shared exclusively with TIME before its public release. The letter, issued on August 29 by the activist organization PauseAI U.K., states that Google’s March launch of Gemini 2.5 Pro without accompanying details on safety testing “establishes a hazardous precedent.” The correspondence, whose signatories include digital rights advocate Baroness Beeban Kidron and former Defence Secretary Des Browne, urges Google to clarify its commitment. For an extended period, leading figures in AI, including Google DeepMind’s CEO, have cautioned that artificial intelligence presents potential catastrophic threats to public safety and security—for instance, by assisting aspiring bio-terrorists in creating a new pathogen or aiding hackers in disrupting vital infrastructure. To mitigate these dangers, Google, OpenAI, and other entities endorsed the Frontier AI Safety Commitments at a global AI summit jointly hosted by the U.K. and South Korean governments in February 2024. The signatories committed to “publicly disclose” system capabilities and risk evaluations, as well as detailing if and how external participants, such as government bodies, were engaged in testing. In the absence of enforceable regulations, both the public and legislators have largely depended on data derived from these voluntary commitments to grasp the evolving hazards of AI. Nevertheless, Google launched Gemini 2.5 Pro on March 25—a model it claimed surpassed competing AI systems in industry benchmarks by “significant margins”—but failed to release comprehensive safety test data for more than a month. The letter contends that this omission not only signifies a “failure to uphold” its international safety obligations but also endangers the precarious standards encouraging secure AI advancement. “Should prominent corporations such as Google regard these commitments as discretionary, we face the peril of a hazardous pursuit to implement increasingly potent AI without adequate protections,” stated Browne in a commentary accompanying the correspondence. “We are honoring our public promises, including the Seoul Frontier AI Safety Commitments,” a spokesperson for Google DeepMind informed TIME through an email statement. The spokesperson added, “Our models are subjected to stringent safety reviews during their development, conducted by entities like UK AISI and various other third-party evaluators – and Gemini 2.5 adhered to this protocol.” The public letter urges Google to define a precise schedule for the release of safety assessment reports pertaining to future product launches. Google initially released the Gemini 2.5 Pro model card—a standard document for conveying safety test data—22 days post-model release. Yet, this eight-page document offered only a concise segment on safety tests. It wasn't until April 28—more than a month following the model's public availability—that the model card received an update featuring a 17-page document detailing specific assessments, which determined that Gemini 2.5 Pro exhibited “substantial” advancements, though not yet hazardous, in areas such as hacking. The revised document also mentioned the engagement of “third-party external testers” but omitted the identification of these parties or whether the U.K. AI Security Institute was among them—a point the letter highlights as another breach of Google's commitment. Following an earlier failure to respond to an inquiry regarding whether Gemini 2.5 Pro had been provided to governments for safety evaluations, a Google DeepMind spokesperson informed TIME that the company had indeed shared Gemini 2.5 Pro with the U.K. AI Security Institute and a “varied collection of outside specialists,” including Apollo Research, Dreadnode, and Vaultis. Nonetheless, Google stated that this sharing with the U.K. AI Security Institute occurred only after Gemini 2.5 Pro's public launch on March 25. On April 3, shortly after the debut of Gemini 2.5 Pro, Tulsee Doshi, Google's senior director and product lead for Gemini, explained to TechCrunch that the absence of a safety report was due to the model being an “experimental” release, while confirming that safety tests had already been performed. She articulated that the purpose of such experimental deployments is to introduce the model restrictively, gather user input, and enhance it before a full production launch, at which point the company would issue a model card detailing the safety tests already completed. However, just days prior, Google had made the model available to all its free users, stating in a post on X that “we want to get our most intelligent model into more people’s hands asap.” The open letter asserts that “designating a publicly available model as ‘experimental’ does not exempt Google from its safety responsibilities,” and further requests Google to define “deployment” in a more universally understood manner. “Corporations bear a significant public duty to thoroughly test new technologies and refrain from using the public for experimental purposes,” commented Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford and a signatory of the letter. He elaborated, “Consider a car manufacturer releasing a vehicle with the statement, ‘we invite the public to experiment and provide feedback when accidents occur, or when they collide with pedestrians, or when the braking system fails.’” Croft expressed skepticism regarding the limitations in furnishing safety reports at the moment of release, reducing the core issue to a question of resource allocation: “What proportion of [Google’s] substantial AI investment is directed towards ensuring public safety and building trust, versus the amount allocated to immense computational power?” It is important to note that Google is not the sole industry giant appearing to disregard safety pledges. xAI has not yet issued a safety report for Grok 4, an AI model launched in July. In contrast to GPT-5 and other recent introductions, OpenAI’s Deep Research tool, released in February, did not have an accompanying safety report on its launch day. The company asserts it conducted “rigorous safety testing,” but the report was only made public 22 days afterward. Joseph Miller, the director of PauseAI U.K., stated that his organization is troubled by other potential breaches, explaining that the emphasis on Google stemmed from its local presence. DeepMind, the AI laboratory purchased by Google in 2014, continues to operate its main office in London. The U.K.'s current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, during his 2024 campaign, indicated he would “compel” major AI firms to disclose safety tests. However, it was reported in February that the U.K.'s AI regulatory strategies were postponed, as the government aimed to better synchronize with the Trump administration's deregulatory stance. Miller asserts that the moment has come to substitute corporate pledges with “genuine regulation,” adding that “voluntary commitments are simply ineffective.”

Imagine waking up on the day of a major exam, consumed by panic, realizing you haven't attended a single class throughout the semester. Fortunately, it's merely a dream. Yet, the question remains: why do these school-centric dreams persist, often years following graduation? According to Dr. Alex Dimitriu, a psychiatrist and sleep medicine physician based in Menlo Park, California, feelings of unpreparedness in dreams often originate from daily life stress. However, he suggests that specifically dreaming of being unprepared in an academic setting might be linked to the formative nature of those years. He explains that for many, school represents the initial encounter with the anxiety of being unprepared. When adult stress arises from work or other circumstances, these early memories of lacking readiness, being tardy, or missing something important can be profoundly impactful. Dylan Selterman, an associate teaching professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University specializing in dream research, observes that dreams related to school are frequently "profoundly distressing." Individuals commonly dream of missing an entire semester and facing failure, struggling to locate their classroom, or discovering an imminent, unprepared-for major exam. He posits that this phenomenon might be due to the academic system itself often being "highly emotionally taxing for most individuals." A national survey of high-school students revealed that the majority held negative sentiments towards their educational experience. Selterman points out that students frequently feel compelled to learn unengaging material or face penalties for non-compliance. Furthermore, studies also show that many students suffer from insufficient sleep, due to early school mornings conflicting with late-night study sessions. Selterman asserts that academic environments often entail high-stress, high-pressure scenarios marked by peer competition and significant stakes. He concludes that, when these elements are combined, the school experience itself can be quite unpleasant. A further theory, according to Selterman, is that seasonal cues can evoke school-related memories. For example, the late August and early September period, coinciding with the start of the academic year, might provoke more recollections or dreams about school. It is generally understood that experiencing such dreams occasionally is not usually a cause for alarm. However, frequent occurrences could indicate another underlying issue, such as persistent anxiety. Dimitriu advises individuals to address this stress by either making lifestyle changes to eliminate its source or by developing effective coping strategies. Dimitriu also attributes unusual or stressful dreams in some individuals to inadequate sleep hygiene. His recommendations include maintaining a consistent sleep-wake schedule daily, refraining from heavy meals or alcohol consumption prior to bedtime, and allocating time for relaxation before sleep. He explains that the human brain cannot transition rapidly from a state of high activity to complete rest within a short period. Dimitriu advises his patients to power down all technology by 10 PM—avoiding screens, work emails, and similar stimuli. Engaging in activities like online shopping or social media scrolling just before sleep can be overly stimulating, causing the brain to remain active when it ought to be winding down. He further suggests that embracing silence can improve sleep quality and also alleviate significant anxiety. He proposes that individuals engage in methods for processing any bothersome issues, which might also enhance feelings of readiness and serve as an "antidote" to stress dreams—like the scenario of missing a final exam. Dimitriu concludes that stress dreams serve as "a prompt to prioritize relaxation and adequate sleep." He emphasizes, "The importance of sleep cannot be overstated."

Austin Butler frequently embodies a distinct persona whenever he appears on screen. For instance, as Elvis in , he immersed himself so completely that, even off-camera, he seemed unable to shed Presley’s deep Southern accent. In , he adopted a Nordic accent and a psychopathic demeanor to portray the Harkonnen scion Feyd-Rautha. His role in saw him as an enigmatic, elusive greaser with almost legendary qualities. Elsewhere, his roles have included (Eddington) and a member of the Manson family (). This makes it particularly noteworthy that in ‘s 90s-set Caught Stealing, an adaptation of Charlie Huston’s novel, Butler takes on the role of Hank Thompson, an essentially ordinary individual. This portrayal perhaps offers the strongest evidence yet of his stardom. Hank is a former baseball player who now tends bar in a Lower East Side establishment. He dates Yvonne (Zoë Kravitz), a fiery EMT, and drinks excessively to dull the pain of a past accident. Yet, for the most part, he’s a likable, quintessential American guy. He frequently calls his mother and even shows kindness to the homeless person on his block. It’s therefore unfortunate that Hank’s world spirals into chaos after he agrees to look after Bud, a cat belonging to his Brit-punk neighbor Russ (), who is involved in highly dangerous affairs. When Russ departs to visit his ailing father, angry gangsters from across the city come searching for him, and it’s Hank they ultimately find. Throughout the film, Butler is tasked with maintaining a composed presence as pandemonium and violence erupt around him. He embodies the everyday man simply trying to live his life, unexpectedly caught in a perilous situation, now at the mercy of volatile Eastern Europeans, Hasidic mobsters, and a sexually brandishing a pistol. In one scene, the rapper, also known as Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, flamboyantly menaces a barely clothed Butler. Despite being surrounded by such eccentric characters, Butler almost invariably remains the most compelling figure on screen. Even in these dire circumstances, he imbues Hank with an effortless charm, the kind of winning demeanor one might expect from a Californian with innate athletic talent. He is, above all, an amiable individual, even while grappling with unresolved emotional trauma and a host of fresh injuries. Caught Stealing marks the first occasion in his adult acting career where Butler appears genuinely at ease leveraging his inherent attractiveness and magnetism on screen. In his early career, Butler was frequently cast in conventional leading man roles due to his classic good looks. For instance, on , he portrayed Sebastian Kydd, a precursor to Mr. Big for a youthful Carrie Bradshaw (). His primary function was to smolder while the leading lady yearned for him. As Butler gained recognition as a "serious actor," he seemed driven, above all, to transform himself, deliberately obscuring both his personal attractiveness and his real-life persona by fully immersing himself in his characters. This isn't to say he made himself unappealing—Elvis, after all, was an original teen idol—but rather that he sought to submerge his own identity. Butler has recently acknowledged his efforts to shed his Method acting tendencies. He that Laura Dern, whom he met by chance, is assisting him in learning how to detach himself from his more demanding roles. “She’s helping me more and more to see that you can come out the other side, and maybe bits of you have healed, and synthesized, and metabolized,” he remarked. “It can be therapeutic, in a way.” This more relaxed, "chiller" Butler is prominently featured in Caught Stealing. While an intensity still underlies his performance—he is, after all, repeatedly bloodied and bruised throughout the action—there’s also an eagerness to engage the audience rather than keep them at a distance. He aims for viewers to align with him and Hank, and consequently, he’s more charming than ever. Even his intoxication feels like a natural extension of his . The most exceptional movie stars possess a blend of raw talent and an indefinable sparkle. Butler has now conclusively demonstrated his technical prowess as an actor, capable of vanishing into roles like Elvis or Feyd-Rautha. Caught Stealing argues that he can be equally captivating when he isn’t concealing his inherent Austin Butler qualities. This bodes well for his enduring presence in Hollywood. He truly possesses a versatile range.

This month, I journeyed to Georgia to investigate the political outcry against rapidly increasing electricity costs. Throughout the state, from urban Atlanta to rural areas, I encountered residents expressing frustration over successive rate hikes. I also connected with independent politicians and activists aiming to transform this issue into a prominent campaign topic. As I noted in a report this week, this political fervor presents a substantial risk to the development of new power infrastructure in the U.S.—and, by extension, the growth of data centers required for AI. This also signals what could be the most crucial alteration to the narrative powering climate initiatives. For decades, climate advocates have attempted with varying degrees of success to make rising global temperatures—and the fossil-fuel-based energy system behind them—relevant to ordinary Americans. Many Americans are now perhaps experiencing that system firsthand. Given these circumstances, it is uncertain whether clean energy proponents can leverage this period to propel a fresh cost-effective agenda—or if widespread concern over electricity costs will lead to increased dependence on fossil fuels. It appears reasonable to suggest that the American climate movement is somewhat adrift. The pivotal U.S. climate legislation—previously considered secure in many circles due to the job creation it pledged in Republican regions under the Inflation Reduction Act—has been undone. Furthermore, following years of diminishing climate denial in public discussion, the U.S. federal government is involved in a deliberate campaign to discredit climate science. Environmental organizations have been compelled to reduce staff as financial backers have withheld support. Certain nonprofit leaders attribute this withdrawal to philanthropists yielding to President Trump. While this might be accurate in some cases, numerous funders indicate to me that following these difficulties, they are simply uncertain about which climate initiatives will genuinely make an impact. Throughout the summer, a fresh theme has begun to surface: the affordability of energy. It would be difficult to dispute that the issue of energy affordability resonates with the general public. While the cost of goods is increasing across the economy, the recent surge in electricity prices has exceeded inflation. Analysts also suggest that this is merely the beginning, as demand, especially from data centers, grows while power supply struggles to keep pace. Findings from PowerLines, a nonprofit striving for broader recognition of utility regulation, indicated that 73% of Americans are concerned about increasing utility costs. A distinct 2024 study by consulting firm EY discovered that two-thirds of Americans could not manage a 10% rise in their energy expenses. Moreover, initiatives aimed at affordability frequently complement climate goals. Currently, utility and power providers intend to construct numerous gas-fired facilities to satisfy demand. In certain areas, these expenses will be directly transferred to consumers. While this new gas might be necessary in some instances to ensure grid reliability, it may not be in others. Clean energy initiatives—especially those already well into development—can lessen cost burdens on the grid. The subsidies provided by the now-rescinded Inflation Reduction Act would have further reduced these expenses. Prioritizing affordability would also encourage utilities to consider energy efficiency and other strategies for maximizing the current grid's capacity more thoughtfully. RMI, a nonprofit focused on clean energy solutions, forecasts that 95% of future demand over the next decade can be addressed with clean solutions like enhanced transmission and efficiency methods. In Georgia, I encountered Peter Hubbard, a solar developer campaigning statewide for a position on the Public Service Commission, the body responsible for regulating the state’s electricity industry. Hubbard is profoundly committed to climate concerns but has become accustomed to using affordability as the primary means to promote emissions reduction. He explained, “I need to prioritize what motivates voters. It simply depends on the audience; if it’s the appropriate one, I discuss climate change, but it serves as a secondary point.” To receive this article in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter by clicking here.

While attending business school, I supported myself by working at Hill and Vaughn, a classic-car restoration shop established by America’s inaugural Formula One champion, Phil Hill, and collector Ken Vaughn. My primary responsibilities there included working on interiors, involving materials like frog skin, buffalo hide, and various others. Additionally, I functioned as a mechanic, rebuilding engines and fixing numerous components and systems essential for cars since the time of Henry Ford. Similar to many in America, I gained knowledge through practical, hands-on experience. In my current role as a CEO, I frequently encounter discussions about how emerging technologies, such as AI, are poised to revolutionize our economy. However, I consistently reflect on the tasks that AI cannot supersede: those performed by millions who primarily use their hands. This encompasses tens of thousands of Ford's hourly staff and skilled craftspeople who ensure our manufacturing operations function daily, as well as millions who depend on our commercial trucks and vans for their livelihoods. From a first responder administering an IV in a moving ambulance to a plumber clearing a clogged drain, AI is incapable of performing these roles. These individuals performing manual labor belong to what we term America’s “Essential Economy.” These are the vital industries crucial for sustaining our economic activity—sectors where jobs have historically served as pathways to the middle class and bedrock for robust, stable communities. Industries such as construction, agriculture, skilled trades, transportation, energy, and manufacturing sustain and deliver in GDP. The Essential Economy forms the fundamental structure of this nation, and it faces threats. In the last eight years—owing to advancements such as cloud computing, mobile applications, and enhanced teleconferencing—productivity in the . However, productivity within the Essential Economy saw a decline during this identical timeframe, by the Aspen Institute. This trend worries me as Labor Day approaches, given that productivity is among the most potent instruments for fostering increased business profits, elevated worker wages, and a stronger national GDP. Strategies for bridging the productivity disparity in the Essential Economy Therefore, what methods can we employ to bridge this divide? Initially, we must earnestly address workforce development. The United States is experiencing significant labor shortages across vital industries. Within my sector, we anticipate requiring over over the subsequent three years merely to meet demand. The construction industry is , and . My forecast indicates that the need for well-trained, skilled Essential Economy workers will intensify in the coming years. For an extended period, workforce development initiatives have been perceived as a form of assistance for those recently unemployed. Conversely, as a argues, we ought to draw inspiration from the effective model of federal R&D financing—and view workforce development as a potent investment in the Essential Economy. Currently, our expenditure on vocational training falls behind almost all other industrialized countries—amounting to only 0.1% of our GDP, based on recent studies. This situation demands alteration. Approximately a century ago, laborers had opportunities for training at private establishments such as the Henry Ford Trade School or via governmental initiatives like the Works Progress Administration. Both of these ceased operations by 1952. Public colleges providing two-year degrees and certifications in skilled trades have historically been, and continue to be, a stepping stone towards a secure middle-class existence. A cultural transformation is needed regarding workforce development in America to dismantle the misconception that these professions are not valuable for our youth to pursue. The labor market outlook for 2050 Our approach to training workers should equip them for the economy of 2050, rather than that of 1950. Innovative tools such as augmented reality and robotics possess the capacity to enhance an automotive technician's productivity, similar to how cloud computing benefited an office employee. Presently, there is a chance to ignite a "digital" transformation for the primary tools used by individuals in hands-on professions. To realize these objectives, it is imperative to reduce bureaucratic hurdles across federal, state, and local administrations. , infrastructure and manufacturing-development projects are halted due to avoidable and expensive delays in permitting. We are capable of identifying methods to guarantee safety, safeguard the environment, and incorporate stakeholder feedback, all while accelerating project completion. I am aware that numerous other valuable ideas exist. Later this month, Ford will host a on the Essential Economy in Detroit. I have extended invitations to prominent figures in business, technology, and government—along with, naturally, workers and entrepreneurs who are at the forefront of the Essential Economy. I am optimistic about our potential impact, as concepts originating in Detroit seldom remain confined to the city. What repercussions will follow if we persist in overlooking the Essential Economy? Insufficient numbers of construction workers will lead to even higher housing costs. A scarcity of agricultural laborers? This will translate to increased grocery prices for everyone. Therefore, as Labor Day draws near, I will commemorate Ford’s frontline personnel and skilled tradespeople for their daily efforts in facilitating the movement of millions. Furthermore, I will seek solutions to narrow the productivity disparity impacting all Essential Economy workers who construct and maintain this nation and its communities. It is time to elevate the Essential Economy to a national priority—as its prosperity is in the collective interest of us all.

Though not a native New Orleanian, I occasionally receive honorary local status, having resided and reported here since 1999. This recognition also stems from giving birth to our son, Hector, at Touro Infirmary in New Orleans twenty years ago, precisely the day before Hurricane Katrina. Hector's expected arrival was September 11, but he arrived prematurely. My initial labor contractions began on August 28, 2005, at Mattassa’s Market, a corner store on Dauphine Street. It was a scorching Saturday, and I had popped in for popsicles. A friend, coincidentally there for cigarettes, escorted me home and remained with me until his father, trumpeter 'Kid Merv' Campbell, concluded his brass-band performance that day. My son was born Sunday morning, roughly a day prior to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall. However, Katrina, striking New Orleans on August 29th as a Category 3 storm, was not the city's ultimate undoing—the subsequent flooding was. Late Sunday night, while we rested with our newborn at the hospital, a scream erupted from a new mother across the corridor. She had received a call from relatives in the Lower 9th Ward, who had hastily ascended to their attic as floodwaters had already engulfed their ground floor. The initial levee breach at Jourdan Avenue had unleashed 20 feet of water into the area, all before my son's first full day of life. By Wednesday, our family had evacuated, settling in Phoenix, Arizona, for eleven months, a period during which I recall virtually no rain. The rugged landscape of rocks and cacti occasionally made it feel like an alien world as we established temporary residences there, initially with my sister, and subsequently aided by a local Presbyterian congregation that embraced us alongside Jeffrey Hills’ family, a New Orleans tuba player. Individuals relocating to a new city comprehend the heartache of separation from a beloved place. Yet, post-Katrina displacement carried a distinct emotional weight. Perhaps artist-dancer Michelle Gibson, a New Orleans native, best encapsulated this feeling during her solo performance, where she entered the audience, selectively moving individuals from their seats to different rows. When an audience member attempted to bring her purse, Gibson instructed her to leave it behind. During such moments, the sole comfort lies in being surrounded by loved ones. Thus, in July 2006, upon loading a U-Haul trailer to depart Phoenix, I journeyed in a caravan with the Hills family. They separated from me in Texas, where they remained for an additional year before they, too, could relocate nearer to home. Hector's father would similarly return independently at a later time. Shortly before the hurricane, we had settled into an apartment bordering the French Quarter, which remained dry. In the immediate aftermath, a friend whose area had flooded resided there until our return. For the subsequent year, a succession of family and friends utilized our front futon, commuting weekly from Texas or Tennessee to aid in the city's reconstruction. This pattern emerged: individuals found a shared temporary dwelling while working towards their more permanent return home. The process of returning was arduous. Homeowners sought contractors or undertook repairs themselves. Renters faced challenges in securing affordable housing, given the rapid escalation of living costs in New Orleans. Occasionally, even during difficult periods, stepping into the city’s humid atmosphere felt inherently correct. Tranquil. It conveyed a sense that all the effort was justified. However, these moments were tempered by the understanding that numerous former neighbors could not return, frequently due to financial constraints, declining health, or unemployment. The forthcoming 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina evokes a similar bittersweet emotion. There is a profound sense of tragedy concerning the events and those who perished in the storm or could not return from displacement. We lament the escalating costs in our city, once renowned for its affordability. My monthly mortgage payment now predominantly consists of home insurance premiums, a consequence of residing in a designated disaster zone. Yet, truthfully, we are content to remain. As Hector reaches his 20th birthday, he offers me a kiss before heading to his role as a senior lifeguard at the Andrew P. Sanchez Rec Center in the Lower 9th Ward. Earlier this summer, in an incident that became a significant local story, his team rescued a man from the water and, employing CPR, successfully revived his breathing and pulse. There's a poignant full-circle quality to my hurricane-born son safeguarding swimmers in the Lower 9th Ward from deep water. Upon leaving work, he drives by vacant lots overgrown with grass and isolated stoops, remnants of homes that once floated. When he returns home, several other neighborhood children born around the time of Katrina often gather, filling the front room with laughter. As young children, all of them resided in various other cities: Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Arizona. However, they now traverse these streets in thick, humid summer air. And in their current conversations, their New Orleans accents are distinctly pronounced. This autumn, our local football coach observed a shift in his team roster, he informed me. For close to two decades, the majority of his players were born outside of New Orleans, often in cities such as Houston, Little Rock, Dallas, and Atlanta—locations where their families had been displaced following Hurricane Katrina. However, this season, most of the player documents he received indicated New Orleans hospitals as birthplaces. For the New Orleans community, such trends signify two decades of recovery since Hurricane Katrina’s devastation. For me, it suggests that New Orleans families may at last be achieving a sense of permanent stability—at home.

Thailand's Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, has seen her tenure officially conclude, just over a year after its commencement. The Constitutional Court of the Southeast Asian nation formally dismissed Paetongtarn from her post as Prime Minister. The dismissal follows a controversial phone call she made earlier this year with Cambodia’s former leader, Hun Sen, which the court determined breached ethics and integrity rules. The court stated that Paetongtarn's criticism of a Thai Army commander during the call "highlighted the fragility of domestic [Thai] politics." It further noted that she offered a concession to Hun Sen, disregarding Thai "national security," in an attempt to bolster her own popularity, as reported by a Thai news source. Swift changes in leadership are common in Thailand. Last year, Paetongtarn's predecessor, Srettha Thavisin, was also removed by the Constitutional Court for an ethics violation, serving less than a year. Paetongtarn's removal follows this pattern, as she had already been on suspension since July 1, awaiting the Friday verdict in her case. Paetongtarn’s family is notably accustomed to political removals. Both her father, Thaksin, and her aunt, Yingluck, previously served as Prime Ministers, with their terms prematurely ended in 2006 and 2014, respectively. According to observers speaking to TIME, with Paetongtarn, dubbed the “” Shinawatra, now no longer in power, the influential political dynasty might never recover its former degree of political sway. “The Shinawatra brand has already sustained irreparable damage,” Napon Jatusripitak, a visiting fellow from ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, informed TIME. He noted that their party, Pheu Thai, has thus far not fulfilled the populist economic promises made upon taking power two years prior. This failure followed a controversial “” pact to collaborate with the conservative military and monarchy-aligned establishment they had previously opposed, a move aimed at preventing the , the party with the most votes, from establishing a government. Paetongtarn’s suspension had already triggered a period of uncertainty that is anticipated to lead to new coalition formations and potentially an earlier general election than expected. Shinawatra’s losing battle for political power Titipol Phakdeewanich, a political scientist at Ubon Ratchathani University, expressed his belief that a Shinawatra "comeback" is "impossible" following the court's decision against Paetongtarn, citing the family and party's unfavorable history. According to a June survey by the National Institute of Development Administration, support for Pheu Thai has declined from 28% to 11%, while Paetongtarn's approval rating plummeted to single digits. Titipol stated that the Shinawatras “do not genuinely connect with the nation’s sentiment, as there is a widespread demand not only for economic prosperity but also for liberty and freedom, issues they consistently avoid addressing.” Napon further commented that the Shinawatra name “lacks its former ideological significance or policy impact. It is now overshadowed by the dispute concerning Paetongtarn’s recent diplomatic error, which has both affirmed conservatives' enduring doubts about the Shinawatras’ reliability in safeguarding national interests and intensified general public apprehension regarding Paetongtarn’s leadership capabilities, especially during periods of national emergency.” The Constitutional Court's judgment on Paetongtarn marked one of three significant legal battles the family confronted. Just last week, a court acquitted Thaksin of a royal defamation charge, an exceptional reprieve for the dynasty considering the usual sentences for such cases. Nevertheless, Titipol posits Thaksin could still encounter trouble in a separate matter. He returned after 15 years in exile when Pheu Thai regained power; despite an eight-year prison sentence, he spent six months in a hospital suite before a royal pardon freed him. The impending verdict, anticipated next month, might lead to his incarceration if he is found not to have completed his time before being paroled. What comes next Napon notes that although a Shinawatra may no longer officially lead Thailand’s government, Thaksin continues to wield influence among his Pheu Thai party members. Any prospective government coalition will “most likely” still need Pheu Thai’s backing—given its 141 representatives in the 500-member lower house of Parliament—at least until a new election is held. Discussions for a fresh coalition government might include Pheu Thai keeping ministerial roles or, potentially, a more lenient stance on Thaksin’s prison enforcement situation. Napon concludes, “The Shinawatra family will persist as a significant political entity,” though he adds, “its former dominance is now relegated to history.”