Tag: News

• After a disastrous debate, many once loyal Democrats are calling on the president to drop out.
• Former Obama aides and popular commentators fear Biden affirmed fears about his age.
• The DNC isn't until August, meaning there's time to choose a new nominee.

For months, Democrats have rallied behind President Joe Biden, insisting that in private moments he's energetic and up for the job. But after the president's abysmal performance last week, some are changing their tune — and the new melody is somber.

Here's what some of Biden's once loyal defenders are saying about the president, with some even begging him to end his campaign before the Democratic National Convention in August.

David Axelrod

A titan of the Obama administration, David Axelrod sounded the alarm during a panel discussion on CNN directly following the debate.

"I think there was a sense of shock, actually, on how he came out at the beginning of this debate," he said. "How his voice sounded — he seemed a little disoriented at the beginning of the debate. He did get stronger as the debate went on, but by that time, I think the panic had set in."

He confronted the question on nearly every Democrat's mind: whether Biden should drop out of the race.

While sparring with Republican strategists on the panel, Axelrod said that the GOP would be in serious "trouble" were the Democratic ticket to change.

The 'Pod' guys

While the former Obama aides who host "Pod Save America" typically support the president, they expressed deep concern about his ability to continue campaigning after the debate.

"Obviously that debate was a fucking disaster," Jon Favreau posted the following morning on X. "And since we haven't had the convention yet, it would be absurd if Democrats didn't at least have a serious discussion about whether Joe Biden — who's a wonderful human being and has been a great president — is up for the job."

In a blog post, Dan Pfeiffer lamented Biden's failure to assuage voters' concerns about his age, saying that he instead "exacerbated them."

Another host, Tommy Vietor, did not mince his words, writing on X that telling notoriously panicked Democrats to temper their concerns was "fucking insulting to people who care deeply about the country."

Claire McCaskill

Claire McCaskill, a former senator turned political analyst, said on MSNBC that her heart broke while watching the debate.

"Joe Biden had one thing he had to do tonight, and he didn't do it," McCaskill said. "He had one thing he had to accomplish, and that was reassure America that he was up for the job at his age. And he failed at that tonight."

McCaskill added that elected officials were pinging her phone throughout the debate, throwing around words like "crisis."

She also said that Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California projected a vitality and assuredness that may leave some questioning why their names aren't at the top of the ticket.

Thomas Friedman

By his own admission, Thomas Friedman, Biden's close friend and a New York Times opinion columnist, wept in his hotel room during the debate.

In an article published the following morning, he called on the president to step aside and let someone else run.

"Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election," Friedman wrote.

Dropping out would, he argued, save Biden's legacy and give Americans the greatest chance of keeping former President Donald Trump out of office come November. He added that while Harris should run if so inclined, voters deserved to choose a nominee from a wide variety of options.

"I had been ready to give Biden the benefit of the doubt up to now, because during the times I engaged with him one-on-one, I found him up to the job," Friedman said. "He clearly is not any longer."

Van Jones

Van Jones, a political analyst and former Obama advisor, called Biden's performance "painful" to watch.

"I just want to speak from my heart," he said on CNN. "I love that guy. That's a good man — he loves his country, he's doing the best that he can, but he had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence of the country and of the base, and he failed to do that."

Many people, Jones added, will want the president to consider stepping aside given that the Democratic National Convention is not until August.

The question is whether Biden "will allow us to do that," he said.

Joy Reid

Joy Reid, a national correspondent on MSNBC, said that she spent the 90-minute debate on the phone with Obama-era aides, Democratic operatives, and campaign officials. Their overall reaction? Panic.

Biden's primary job was to settle Democrats and their well-documented tendency to freak out.

"He did the opposite of that," she said.

Ben Rhodes

Characteristically geared toward concerns abroad, Ben Rhodes, who was Obama's deputy national security advisor, kept it plain and simple on Twitter: "Just think about what that debate looked like to people and leaders around the world."

Nicholas Kristof

Nicholas Kristof, a columnist and CNN contributor, chimed in with his own two cents in The New York Times, writing that Biden staying in the race would increase the risk that Trump wins back the presidency.

Kristof implored the president to drop out and leave his successor in the hands of delegates at the Democratic National Convention. He named Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, as prospective nominees.

"This will be a wrenching choice," he wrote. "But, Mr. President, one way you can serve your country in 2024 is by announcing your retirement."

Evan Osnos

Earlier this year, Evan Osnos wrote a considerable profile on Biden; in 2020, he published a sympathetic biography about the president, an excerpt of which he retweeted late Thursday night.

When writing the book, Osnos asked Biden how he would respond to those who believe is too old to be president. Biden answered simply, saying he would ask people, "Look at me. Decide."

Osnos, grappling with that decision himself, said on CNN after the debate that the man Americans saw onstage was a "diminished" version of the man he wrote about four years ago.

Joe Scarborough

Even Joe Scarborough, one of the hosts of MSNBC's hit show "Morning Joe," widely considered Biden's go-to morning talk show, bit into the president. He opened his show by affirming his "love" for Biden but went on to say that the president "missed one layup after another," even on should-be knockout topics, such as abortion.

"I fear Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States unless things change," Scarborough said. He joined the scores of Biden's friends candidly questioning whether Democrats should select a different nominee.

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman, an economist and opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote in a column that Biden, based on his policy record, should be an "overwhelming" favorite for reelection, but wasn't.

While describing him as the "best" president of his adult life, he said Biden failed to rise to the occasion when it "really" mattered during the presidential debate and said he must "very reluctantly" join those calling on him to step aside.

"In any case, although I hate to see Biden in this position, he's a good man, and I hope he'll do the right thing," Krugman wrote.

Chandler West

Chandler West, former White House deputy director of photography from January 2021 through May 2022, wrote in a now-deleted Instagram story: "It's time for Joe to go," according to screenshots obtained by Axios.

He said he knows how the White House operates, and said they will blame a "cold" or a "bad night." But White House operatives have said privately for weeks and months that Biden is "not as strong as he was just a couple of years ago," West wrote.

In a text message sent to Axios, West predicted that the debate is "not gonna be the last" bad day for Biden.

Correction: June 28, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated the role of Ben Rhodes in the Obama administration. He was the deputy national security advisor, not the national security advisor.

• Ukraine's allies have given it new permissions to hit military targets in Russia.
• The shift threatens Russia's ability to launch strikes and stage attacks with impunity from within its borders.
• Experts say Ukraine can now begin to fight properly.

With new permissions giving Ukraine more ways to use its weaponry, including striking into Russia, the West is finally giving it a chance to fight back against Russia properly, experts say.

From the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 until recently, Ukraine had been forbidden by partner nations from using Western weaponry for attacks on Russian territory.

Those restrictions, which Russia fights without, put Ukraine at a serious disadvantage. Russia launches many of its drone and missile attacks from within its own borders, and it amasses troops and equipment at home for offensive pushes into Ukraine.

But for a long time, Ukraine could only turn to options like long-range drones to go after targets in Russia. It's scored impactful hits on airbases and other targets, but not in the way it could with more dedicated weaponry.

Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander for UK and NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear forces, told BI that the restrictions on Ukraine were "ridiculous." The West was "giving so much advantage to the Russians," he said.

Other analysts have described it as Ukraine having to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

But many of Ukraine's international partners changed their stance, announcing in late May that the war-torn country could use the weapons they supplied to go after many military targets on Russian soil.

There are still some restrictions, such as the US rules on its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), but Ukraine finally receiving the permission to at least use some weapons on targets in Russia, de Bretton-Gordon said, is giving it a shot at "cutting the head off the snake."

Ukraine can now fight

The changes mean Ukraine's forces can target Russian air defenses in Russian territory, as well as some of the aircraft and other weapons systems that fire at them, eliminating the source rather than trying to intercept missiles and drones once they are already in the air.

De Bretton-Gordon noted that many Russian missile and drone attacks are launched from Russia itself. "If you can't actually attack them before they take off, you are already 10-nil down."

George Barros, a Russia analyst at the US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) think tank, said the change should be a big one for Ukraine's effectiveness.

"I think over the last two years, analysts thinking about Ukrainian capabilities on the battlefield have largely been constrained by certain assumptions," he said. "One key thing was that the battle lines in Ukraine really can't improve all that much because Ukrainians can't do combined arms warfare effectively."

There have been some institutional challenges within the Ukrainian military that have hindered such operations, but it's also been hamstrung by a lack of air support for ground forces.

Barros said Ukraine can start taking out Russian missile and air defense systems, helping Ukraine's air force, including its F-16s when they arrive, and its troops on the ground advance in ways they have not previously been able to.

With Russia's border areas no longer safe, it may need to withdraw its weapons systems back farther away from Ukraine, reducing the ability to strike into it. It also increases the strain on other parts of the Russian armed forces.

Philip Ingram, a former British Army intelligence and security officer, said before some of the restrictions were lifted, "the Russians could bring their air defense forces, they could bring the logistic dumps, they could bring their command and control almost right up to border, knowing full well that Ukrainians weren't allowed to use anything across the border."

"Now that that has been changed, the Russians are having to move that back," he said.

Professor Michael Clarke, a Russia and Ukraine expert and a British national security advisor, said "the ability to use multiple launch rocket systems on Russian territory — and F-16s when it comes to it, that, I think, will have a growing effect."

But there are still limits still holding Ukraine back.

The US still won't let Ukraine hit deep into Russian territory to reach military targets there, meaning Ukraine can't use long-range weaponry like ATACMS to hit where some of Russia's attacks are still coming from. Instead, Ukraine has had to turn to some homemade options, such as its Neptune missiles, anti-ship weapons modified for land attack, or its long-range drones.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that Ukraine's partner nations should further relax restrictions on hitting military targets in Russia, saying the remaining limitations make it hard to stop Russia's deadly glide bomb attacks, which are launched from jets out of reach by warplanes like Russia's Su-34 fighter-bombers.

He said that Russia had dropped more than 800 glide bombs in Ukraine over the past week alone.

"Ukraine needs the necessary means to destroy the carriers of these bombs, including Russian combat aircraft, wherever they are. This step is essential," he said.

ISW said in a June update that many major Russian airbases are within range of ATACMS, which Ukraine can't use, but out of range of Ukrainian weaponry that it is permitted — which allows Russia to keep using those bases to launch attacks without answer.

But even as Ukraine is requesting more freedom with how it engages Russia and uses Western weapons, the relaxation of other restrictions has so far yielded meaningful results, experts told BI.

Helping in Kharkiv

Experts and Ukrainian officials say the new rules have already made a difference in Kharkiv even though it's been less than a month since they changed.

Russia initiated a new offensive against Kharkiv on May 10, launching deadly missile attacks and slowly pushing its military forward. But Russia's attack tempo has slowed since Ukraine's permissions changed at the end of May, and the Russian ground operations have slowed as well.

Barros said that Ukraine has already made a "positive difference" since the recent change in engagement permissions. He said Ukraine has, for instance, been using Western weaponry to hit Belgorod, a Russian region close to Kharkiv.

"They've actually helped blunt the Russian offensive at the heart," he said, adding that the Ukrainians have been able to launch "small tactical counterattacks."

Ingram agreed, saying that in Kharkiv, Ukraine's new permissions have "made a huge difference. Absolutely huge difference."

The ability to strike into Russia was particularly important for Ukraine as the fighting took place near Russia's border, where attacks were launched and fresh troops and supplies could be rotated in with Ukraine unable to answer. Ukraine now has a response, though its military continues to face tremendous pressure from the much larger and relentless Russian military.

Cancian said the US was willing to give permission for combat action in the border areas near Kharkiv because Russia's "rear services and their artillery are still in Russian territory. And if the Ukrainians could not attack those, then they would be at a severe disadvantage."

He said Russia has also reportedly moved some of its air defenses from Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula region it occupies, to protect Belgorod. He described that as "very important." If Ukraine can force Russia to do that in more places, Russia's command is left with tough decisions about what to protect and how.

Permissions are not the sole factor, though. Ukraine's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance picture matters as well, determining the effectiveness of its strikes. The US has helped with targeting in the past, but it remains uncertain to what extent it will engage in this endeavor. Regardless, the Ukrainians have seen successes.

A Ukrainian artillery commander told the Associated Press recently that Ukrainian US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems started firing in the Kharkiv region as soon as Ukraine got the new permission and in the first days "managed to destroy whole columns of troops along the border waiting for the order to enter Ukraine."

And two Ukrainian officials also told The Washington Post that some Russian attacks had been reduced in that region since the new permissions came in. The AP reported that Ukraine's new operational permissions had "greatly slowed Russia's momentum" in Kharkiv.

• Michelle Obama is the only prominent Democrat capable of beating Trump, a poll found. 
• President Joe Biden's candidacy is in question after a disastrous debate performance.
• But the former first lady has repeatedly ruled out running for office. 

Former First Lady Michelle Obama is the only Democrat capable of beating Donald Trump should President Joe Biden drop out of the race, a poll found.

According to an Ipsos/Reuters poll published Wednesday, in a hypothetical contest between Trump and several potential Democratic candidates in November, Obama was the only one with a clear lead over Trump.

Around 50% said they would vote for Obama, while only 39% said they would vote for Trump. Others said they either didn't know or wouldn't vote.

The poll also showed Biden, whose candidacy is in doubt after a disastrous debate against Trump last week, in a 40% to 40% dead heat with the Republican.

Other potential Democratic candidates all polled lower than Trump, with Vice President Kamala Harris trailing Trump at 43%-42%, California Gov. Gavin Newsom trailing 42%-39% and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer at 41%-36%.

The chances of Obama taking on Trump, though, are remote, with the former first lady having repeatedly ruled out standing for office.

As recently as March, in a statement to NBC News, she said she would not be running.

"As former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president," her communications director said. "Mrs. Obama supports President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' re-election campaign."

The statement was in response to a flurry of speculation that she could replace Biden as the Democratic candidate this year.

Obama, who campaigns for causes including healthy eating and gender equality, has long been among the most popular political figures in the US.

In 2020, Biden said he'd choose her as his running mate "in a heartbeat" if she decided to stand.

Obama campaigned for Biden in 2920, delivering the keynote speech at the DNC convention where she warned of the dangers of a second Trump term. She's kept a lower profile during this year's election but had been expected to campaign for Biden during the final stretch of the election.

Her husband, former President Barack Obama, has stood by Biden despite the shaky debate performance but has privately remarked that Biden's road to reelection has become difficult following the debate, The Washington Post reported.

• Ukraine is creating new brigades but can't arm all of them, military experts said.
• The Institute for the Study of War said this is likely due to a lack of Western weapons and delays.
• Delays in weapons deliveries are the "biggest tragedy of this war," Ukraine's president said this week.

Ukraine is creating several new brigades but it can't arm all of them, military experts said.

In an interview with The Economist in May, Lieutenant General Oleksandr Pavliuk, the commander of Ukraine's ground forces, said that Ukraine planned to create at least 10 new brigades to prepare for a Russian offensive.

"Ukraine is addressing its manpower challenges and is forming several new brigades, but delayed and insufficient Western weapons deliveries will likely prevent Ukraine from equipping all these new brigades," the Institute for the Study of War said on Wednesday.

It added that "timely and appropriate Western security assistance continues to be a crucial determinant of when and at what scale Ukrainian forces can contest the battlefield initiative and conduct operationally significant counteroffensive operations in the future."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a similar assessment in an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday.

He told the outlet that Ukrainian forces are in a better manpower position than they were a few months ago, but that they still lack the equipment they need.

"A problem can be solved if one has the will and has the tools. We do have the will, and the tools — they haven't arrived yet," he said.

The US sent $61 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine in April, after months of delays over Republican opposition.

But the equipment is taking too long to reach the front lines, Zelenskyy told Bloomberg.

"This is the biggest tragedy of this war, that between the decision and real fact, we have a real long, long, long wait," he said.

The commander of Ukraine's 24th Separate Mechanized Brigade, which operates near the crucial city of Chasiv Yar, made a similar point, saying Ukrainian units need more weapons to protect the city.

It's not the first time Ukraine has faced delays in getting the weapons it needs to fight.

Last year, a report compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that only about half of the heavy weapons that Ukraine's allies had promised to send it had actually been delivered.

Mykhailo Podolyak, a top advisor to Zelenskyy, said last year that Ukraine's military efforts against Russia were six to nine months behind schedule because of delays in Western weapons deliveries in the fall of 2022.

And in May, Zelenskyy told Reuters that the West always gives weapons a year after Ukraine needs them.

An unnamed officer even told Politico in April that continued delays made Western weapons "no longer relevant" once they made it to the battlefield.

While some new ammunition is starting to make it to the front lines, Ukrainian soldiers in Vovchansk, in Ukraine's northeastern Kharkiv region, told The Telegraph last month that they are heavily outgunned.

"If we use 10 shells, they send 50 back," one unnamed artillery gunner told the outlet.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, Ukraine doesn't have the time and flexibility to wait for Western supplies to equip its new units.

"The longer Ukraine must wait to equip and deploy new brigades, the more opportunities Russian forces will have to disrupt Ukrainian efforts to concentrate new uncommitted combat power for future counteroffensive operations," it said.

• Priya Mistry is a dentist who specializes in treating jaw disorders.
• She says the jaw is part of overall posture, just like the spine and hips. 
• Avoid chewing too much, resting your head on your hands, and reduce stress for better jaw health.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Priya Mistry. It has been edited for length and clarity.

For the 11 years I was practicing general dentistry, about five patients came into my practice each year with severe temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders that were impacting their daily lives. This type of jaw pain was debilitating, but I hadn't learned anything about treating it in dental school. I felt like the medical and dental communities had failed these patients.

I wanted to do better for them, so I asked to shadow a TMJ expert. I watched as he evaluated patients' posture and leg length. He taught me how the jaw — along with the feet, hips, and spine — is essential for posture. His patients told me he had saved their lives because they had so much jaw pain before seeing him.

By the end of the first day, I knew I wanted to take over his practice. I had a 2-year-old and a 2-month-old at the time, so he was skeptical. But I worked under him for three years and brought the practice when he retired in 2021. Now, he's like a second dad to me.

Since then, I've learned a lot about jaw health — including that seemingly harmless things can really impact your jaw. Here are five common things you should avoid if you want to foster good jaw health in yourself and your kids.

Avoid resting your head on your hands

Many people rest their heads against their fists when they're looking at the computer during the day. This puts a lot of lateral pressure on the temporomandibular joint, which is designed mostly for back-and-forth movement. Even 20 minutes here and there adds up and can strain your jaw muscles or joints.

I caution my patients against chewing pens, gum, or fingernails

Humans aren't meant to be chewing constantly. Chewing on items throughout the day — like pens, fingernails, or gum — means you're overusing your jaw muscles. You wouldn't do bicep curls all day, right? Chewing on gum or other items is like doing that for your jaw and can lead to overuse injuries.

Don't even get me started on popular jaw strengtheners, which people chew on to try to get a more defined jawline. Those things scare me and I would recommend everyone steer clear.

Don't use your teeth to open things

Lots of people grind their teeth at night without realizing it, which can weaken the teeth. When you use your teeth to tear open a plastic package or anything else, it puts a lot of pressure on the teeth. Sometimes, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, and your tooth can crack or chip.

It's easier said than done, but try to reduce stress

Lots of TMJ problems happen because people clench or grind their jaws. When we're emotionally stressed, we clench even more than normal. During the pandemic, referrals to my practice skyrocketed, and my mentor and I fully believed it was because of stress. If possible, try to find ways to reduce and manage your stress and relax your jaw.

I advise parents to wean babies off pacifiers by 6 months

Pacifiers and thumb sticking can cause the mouth, palette, and jaw to grow in all sorts of wrong directions. That's why I like to see babies stop using pacifiers by 6 months. Pacifiers interrupt healthy tongue posture (in which the tongue is touching the roof of the mouth). That can lead to mouth breathing and other health concerns that could be avoided by kicking the pacifier early.

Jaw health and tongue position can play a huge role in overall health. Taking small actions to take care of your oral health now — and getting help if you experience issues like clicking, popping, or mouth breathing — can help you stay healthy.

• A Delta Air Lines plane U-turned after reports the in-flight meal was spoiled.
• 24 people were treated by medical personnel upon landing in New York on Wednesday.
• Thousands of other Delta passengers that day were only offered vegetarian meals as a result, per PYOK.

24 Delta Air Lines passengers received medical attention after eating "spoiled" food on their flight, The Associated Press reported.

The redeye flight from Detroit to Amsterdam U-turned over Newfoundland and diverted to New York early Wednesday morning, according to data from Flightradar24.

In a statement to the AP, Delta Air Lines said the Airbus A330 turned around "after reports that a portion of the main cabin in-flight meal service were spoiled."

A spokesperson for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey told the outlet that 24 people were treated by medical personnel upon landing. That included 10 crew members and 14 of the plane's 277 passengers, they said.

Nobody was hospitalized, and it's unclear if more people ate the dubious food.

Travel news site Paddle Your Own Kanoo reported that thousands of Delta passengers on other international flights on Wednesday were only offered a vegetarian meal as a result.

"This is not the service Delta is known for, and we sincerely apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay in their travels," Delta told the AP. It added that it was investigating the incident.

Delta and the PANYNJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, sent outside regular US working hours.

Similar incidents have occurred on other airlines in recent months.

In May, a United Airlines plane had to be taken out of service for a deep clean after 30 passengers fell ill, with symptoms like vomiting and nausea. The cause is being investigated.

Earlier that month, 70 passengers reported similar symptoms on a Condor flight. The airline said it would implement "more intensive cleaning measures" as a result.

The most famous airline-vomiting incident occurred on a 1975 Japan Air Lines flight. Nearly 200 passengers fell ill, 144 of whom were taken to the hospital. It was later found that some of the meals had been contaminated by Staphylococcus bacteria, which caused food poisoning.

• When I divorced, I kept my last name to remain connected to my son.
• After my ex-husband married a woman with a similar name, I wanted to change my name.
• Instead of going back to my maiden name, I made up an entirely new name that helped me find myself.

I easily recall the lawyer saying he could change my name as part of the divorce proceedings. But it didn't make sense for me to take back my maiden name at that time.

While my husband and I didn't choose to remain married, my son and I were still a family. I wanted to have the same name as him and keep our connection.

I kept my married name for years until my ex-husband started dating a woman with a very similar name as me.

My ex-husband's second marriage changed things

When I realized that my ex-husband was going to marry the woman with a similar first name as me, I realized something shocking: She would also have the same last name as me, too.

I complained about the two of us having oddly similar first names with the same last name in therapy one day, and my therapist nonchalantly said, "You could change your name."

It was a flip remark, and I doubt he expected me to take it seriously, but I did. I became adamant about it. I liked the idea of coming up with something completely new and started exploring options.

The idea of creating a new name was intriguing

Of course, the natural and easy thing to do would've been to return to my maiden name. Except to me, going back to that name felt like I was going backward in terms of my life's evolution. I was a different person after my divorce, and I didn't wish to return to my pre-marital name. I'd grown beyond my family of origin, and rather than returning to that space and time by claiming my maiden name, I wanted to create something entirely new.

I called my girlfriends and asked them for feedback on what I should do and who I should become in light of this "opportunity" I faced. We had plenty of laughs while scheming names I could choose. I even pondered going completely rouge and having only one name like Cher or going all the way like Prince, who just had a symbol for his name.

I was certain that my new name had to feel good and reflect a new future.

One of my friends suggested I use my son's middle name, "Drake," as my last name. "Drake" gave me the new beginning I was searching for and kept me connected to my son, which was always my intent. We also laughed at the initials "M.D." and their air of importance.

My new name set the stage for a new identity

The first step to a new identity was creating and claiming a name. But the name change was much bigger than updating my records and getting a new Social Security card.

Beginning life with a new name started a more definitive individuation process for me — one where I came into my own as a woman, a mother, a professional, and eventually a business owner and author. It was a life where I learned what I wanted instead of taking on the likes and dislikes of my family. I also took steps to unlearn and reprogram the things I was taught that no longer resonated with my soul.

It was an unraveling of sorts that landed me a brand-new life.

My new name forged the way for me to follow the dreams of my heart and do things the pre-marital and married version of me never would've considered, like taking a massive pay cut to care for my mental health, selling my home and moving across the country, forgoing full-time employment in favor of entrepreneurship, and remaining single over having an unfulfilling relationship.

Choosing a new name was a practice in standing alone but connected to my son, bucking the system, and paving my way to a life I love.

• Deborah Szekely, 102, still works at the wellness resort she co-founded in 1940.
• Szekely shared her secrets to longevity including daily walks and having no regrets. 
• Her healthy habits are backed up by research. 

At 102, Deborah Szekely still works three days a week at the health resort she cofounded over 80 years ago.

Szekely opened Rancho La Puerta in Baja California, Mexico, with her late husband in June 1940. She doesn't see her age as a reason to change, she told Women's World in May.

"When nature says, 'You got to stop Deborah,' Deborah will stop. Until then, she'll keep going," she told CNBC Make It on June 28.

While how long a person lives depends partly on luck and genetics, certain lifestyle choices can extend our healthspan — or how long into our lives we're healthy and active.

Given that more people are living to 100 than ever before — the number of Americans aged 100 and over is projected to more than quadruple in the next 30 years, according to Pew Research Center — it's easy to see why longevity is a buzzy topic.

Szekely, who has structured her lifestyle to stay healthy, shared four tips on how others can do the same.

Do 'good old-fashioned' exercise

Szekely believes that "good old-fashioned" exercise is a key part of staying healthy, Barrons reported in April.

"The specific type of exercise doesn't matter; what matters is that you're pushing yourself enough to feel it, getting your heart rate up, and breaking a sweat. If you get really huffy puffy, you're doing a good job," Szekely said.

One 2019 study published in The BMJ found that people who were sedentary for 9.5 hours a day were about twice as likely to die early than those who did the most exercise, but any physical activity, regardless of intensity, was linked with a lower risk of dying from any cause.

Szekely walks at least a mile each day, which she likes to do in local parks, she told Women's World.

Eat healthily

Szekely is against fad diets and believes that food is a "way of life," she told Barrons. Dietitian Elena Paravantes previously told Business Insider that making gradual changes to your diet is the best way to start eating healthily.

Szekely has been a pescatarian since childhood and tries to eat "as fresh as possible," growing much of her own food on the ranch's farm.

Her daily breakfast consists of bananas and yogurt, according to Women's World, but she doesn't shy away from the occasional treat — her favorite is coffee ice cream.

BI previously reported on a 2020 study that found eating mostly plant-based whole foods is linked to lower blood pressure and a lower risk of heart disease.

Stay positive and have no regrets

"The world has tons of problems, and you can't do anything about them," Szekely told Women's World. "When you worry, you add to the problems. By not worrying, you subtract from the problems."

She also doesn't believe in looking back, she told CNBC. "That's a total waste of time. You can't do anything about it, it's done," she said.

Instead, she tries to reframe everything in a positive light and always look ahead, moving on from things she can't fix, she told Barrons.

Research suggests that a positive mindset and a tendency to look for silver linings are common traits of centenarians.

Get involved in the community

"Community survival is absolutely vital to longevity. The health and happiness of our neighbors are not only important; they are a requirement. Without the health of the things surrounding you, it's hard to be healthy," Szekly told Barrons.

A 2021 meta-analysis of studies published in Frontiers in Psychology found a link between having a support network and living longer. A 2024 study by researchers at Purdue University, Indiana, meanwhile, found links between positive relationships and longevity, and the ability to continue doing daily tasks such as walking, climbing stairs, or carrying groceries.

• Universal basic income is quickly evolving from a fantastical idea into economic reality.
• Several countries are testing it and figures like Elon Musk and MrBeast have endorsed the concept.
• Here's an in-depth look at UBI, its origins, and its major benefits and costs.

Universal basic income has made giant strides from its origins as a utopian vision toward becoming economic reality.

Basic income trials have been conducted in countries as varied as Kenya, Finland, India, and Canada. Tesla's Elon Musk, YouTube star MrBeast, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich are among the high-profile champions of the concept.

Yet the idea of handing out money with no strings attached strikes many people as alien, questionable, or even just plain wrong.

Here's a closer look at UBI, its history, and its potential advantages and possible downsides.

What is UBI?

A universal basic income is generally defined as a recurring cash payment to all individuals in a population regardless of their wealth, with no restrictions on how the money is spent and no repayment expected.

Experiments have been relatively small-scale, and many have targeted lower-income populations rather than everyone to keep costs down, garner political support, and maximize the payments' impact on poverty.

Where did the idea come from?

People have proposed variations of UBI since at least the 1500s, when Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives called for everyone to be given food even if they'd gambled away their money, as he believed nobody should die of hunger.

American revolutionary Thomas Paine proposed a national fund in 1797 that would pay some money to citizens every year after they turned 21.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. touted the concept in 1967. The civil rights leader hailed it as a tool to redress historical racial discrimination and temper widespread poverty and unemployment in the Black community.

Legendary economist and free market champion Milton Friedman defended a similar idea: a negative income tax. He said it might help the poor without distorting the market, and lessen the government's role in determining who deserves support.

The list of proponents has expanded in recent years to include Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, technocrat Andrew Yang, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and many other high-profile individuals.

What's the point of UBI?

Proponents of UBI say it reduces poverty, strengthens the social safety net, promotes health and happiness, and combats the stigma around welfare.

Simply giving people money can help them to afford basics like groceries, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Covering the costs of daily life has only grown harder in recent years, as food, fuel, and rent inflation has jumped to 40-year highs, and credit card, car loan, and mortgage payments have ballooned due to surging interest rates.

A guaranteed income can also give people the confidence, security, and freedom to know they won't starve or be evicted if they lose their jobs or quit. They might want to start a business, stay at home to raise their children, care for relatives, invest in training or education, or manage a sickness or disability.

Regular cash payments may help to relieve the stress and worry of paying bills, saving for college or retirement, or losing access to means-tested support. Basic income recipients in a Finnish trial reported higher life satisfaction, improved health, and lower levels of depression and loneliness.

Making universal payments might also lessen the stigma around receiving government benefits, avoid some of the costs and mistakes of administering means-tested support, and provide a safety net for the wealthy if they run into financial trouble.

As for Musk and other technologists, they predict that artificial intelligence will render millions of workers obsolete, making it necessary to provide a basic income for those out of work to survive.

What do critics say?

Critics say that UBI erodes the incentive to work, encouraging laziness and idleness. They also warn that recipients might waste the money on shopping, vacations, gambling, liquor, cigarettes, or drugs.

Other skeptics question why wealthy people should receive money they don't need, and caution that paying it for it would require higher taxes or budget cuts.

Dave Ramsey has criticized the concept as "straight out of the Karl Marx playbook." The personal finance guru and radio host bemoaned that people build character by overcoming challenges instead of getting bailed out.

It's quite possible that UBI saps work ethic. But it might also lead to higher wages, job satisfaction, and productivity, as people could afford to be more picky about employment and hold out for better pay.

How do supporters respond?

Regarding how the money is spent, UBI fans say that's not a serious concern.

"The evidence from trials is that participants tend to spend most of the money received on the basic needs of everyday life," Jack Kellam, the head of operations at Autonomy, told Business Insider.

Moreover, an analysis of 30 pilot programs in the US involving nearly 8,300 participants found more than half the cash grants went toward food and groceries, transportation, housing, utilities, healthcare, and education.

Other experts say people's spending shouldn't be scrutinized. Douglas MacKay, an associate professor of public policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, told BI that trying to control spending is "paternalistic" and fails to treat recipients with dignity — as adults and equals who are "fully capable of governing their own lives."

Moreover, there's strong evidence that poorer people don't use drugs, alcohol, or tobacco at higher rates than wealthy people, and drug addiction is often triggered by mental illnesses like depression.

"To the extent that UBI relieves people from misery, we should expect it would decrease 'vice' spending," Karl Widerquist, a philosophy professor at Georgetown University-Qatar and the author of several books about UBI, told BI.

As for the rich getting richer and the question of funding, Kellam said that most UBI advocates envision it alongside a more progressive tax system.

"Many of the wealthiest individuals would be 'net' losers in the system: though they receive payments, because they would be taxed more, they would overall be less well off," he told BI.

An open question

Universal basic income remains a largely theoretical idea that could have significant — and unpredictable — impacts on wealth inequality, human welfare, labor markets, and entire economies.

But tests and trials at different scales and across myriad countries and contexts are putting the concept through its paces, and promise to reveal whether it's an effective way to combat poverty, fight stigmas, deal with AI, and help people live healthier, happier, and more stable lives.

• AI makes it easier than ever to spread misinformation and disinformation on social media. 
• Legal experts argue real change can only happen through new laws or the social media companies themselves.
• One expert called for amending an internet law that protects social media companies from civil liability. 

In the age of generative artificial intelligence, the public is arguably more susceptible than ever to fall victim to disinformation and misinformation on social media.

It's on social media platforms where disinformation and misinformation runs rampant. You can almost bet on it that any time major events become part of the public conversation, digital falsehoods swiftly circulate. Think of the COVID-19 pandemic and both the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential election cycles.

AI-generated so-called deepfakes are only exacerbating the problem and making it easier than ever to spread disinformation and misinformation via social media.

Legal experts told Business Insider that the only real way to combat misinformation and disinformation on social media is through the creation of new federal laws or the tech companies behind the platforms voluntarily ramping up their own self-regulation.

"AI means it's not just going to be words" that disseminate false information on social media, it's going to be videos and photos and audio recordings," said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney and author of the book, "Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America."

McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan law school believes there needs to be new laws on the books to address this issue because "this is new technology that didn't previously exist."

"We may be reaching a point of awareness where people are beginning to understand the risk and the danger of it," McQuade said.

A recent federal assessment compiled by the US Department of Homeland Security warned of the threats AI poses to America's 2024 presidential election.

"As the 2024 election cycle progresses, generative AI tools likely provide both domestic and foreign threat actors with enhanced opportunities for interference by aggravating emergent events, disrupting election processes, or attacking election infrastructure," the analysis obtained by ABC News said.

Social media companies are protected from civil liability under a US law

Social media has largely gone unregulated since its birth nearly three decades ago. In the US, tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok are protected from civil liability related to the content posted by their users and the companies' content moderation practices under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

"It says they are not subject to legal liability, they are immune," McQuade explained. "And that probably made sense in 1996 when the goal was to foster innovation and investment, and here we are almost 30 years later, and we've seen some of the collateral consequences of this unregulated space."

So what's been the struggle for the government to address the issue of disinformation and misinformation on social media head-on? First Amendment concerns, pushback by Big Tech, and political will, have something to do with it, according to legal experts.

"It's hard to enact legislation, it's hard to define the terms" of misinformation and disinformation, it's hard to have agreement on what the proper intervention would be, and I think it's hard to craft something that's not going to have a First Amendment problem," said Gautaum Hans, a law professor, and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell University.

"Any kind of regulation that targets speech has a very difficult barrier to constitutionality, so the issue there is you'd have to define disinformation or misinformation in a way that made it not covered by the First Amendment," said Hans.

Hans said he believes there's a "general skittishness about any legislator or any government official proposing something that could be deemed Orwellian in its attempt to try to create a regulation of protected speech."

"So most politicians, I think, are cognizant that it would be bad for their reputations to be seen as speech suppressive," he said.

Additionally, Hans noted, "there are benefits to certain political actors about the existence of misinformation."

Hans said he believes it is more likely that the remedies to misinformation and disinformation on social media will be found through the private practices of tech companies themselves instead of through the realm of law.

"I think that it is more likely to happen, and probably more effective in the long-term given the constitutional problems of legislative or regulatory intervention," he said.

Section 230 has been hotly debated for years

McQuade argued that social media companies would need to be incentivized to beef up their self-regulation on fighting misinformation and disinformation.

"I just think that you either need to put public pressure on them through consumers to make them change their behavior or through federal legislation," said McQuade.

McQuade proposed amending Section 230 in order to hold social media companies accountable under certain circumstances.

"The better course for regulating social media and online content might be to look at processes versus content because content is so tricky in terms of First Amendment protections," the former federal prosecutor said, adding, "regulating some of the processes could include things like the algorithms."

"I'm suggesting that perhaps Section 230 could be amended to provide for civil liability, you know, money damages if the social media companies didn't take certain precautions," she said.

Those precautions, McQuade said, could relate to the disclosure of algorithms and how private data is used, requiring users to label AI-generated material, and the removal of bots, which "are there to amplify false information."

"So I think that would be the way to sort of use a stick to get compliance by exposing" social media companies to legal liability for failure to comply with certain terms, said McQuade.

This would inevitably be challenged legally, and "they'd make it to the courts to see whether those laws would stick, but I think that's probably what it would require," McQuade said.

"Information is such an important resource, especially in a democracy," said McQuade. "And it seems that everyone should agree that when there is disinformation out there that is an obstacle to good government."

Section 230 has come under intense scrutiny over the years from both Republican and Democratic politicians alike.

Former President Donald Trump and other Republicans have argued the law gives Big Tech too much power to censor conservative voices, while Democrats like President Joe Biden have said it doesn't do enough to fight hate speech.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last year, Biden double-downed on calls to reform of Section 230.

"We need bipartisan action from Congress to hold Big Tech accountable," Biden wrote in the op-ed. "We've heard a lot of talk about creating committees. It's time to walk the walk and get something done."

Big Tech, however, scored a massive win last year when the US Supreme Court sided with Twitter and Google in lawsuits that alleged they "aided and abetted" terrorist attacks.

The decision, which was written by conservative justices, stayed out of the fight over Section 230.

Major social media companies have their own misinformation policies

Many major social media companies, including Meta, TikTok and X, have their own policies when it comes to tackling misinformation and disinformation.

For example, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, says on its website that it removes misinformation "where it is likely to directly contribute to the risk of imminent physical harm."

"We also remove content that is likely to directly contribute to interference with the functioning of political processes and certain highly deceptive manipulated media," Meta says.

Meta says it focuses "on slowing the spread of hoaxes and viral misinformation" and requires users to disclose, using its "AI-disclosure tool," whenever they post content with "photorealistic video or realistic-sounding audio that was digitally created or altered, and we may apply penalties if they fail to do so."

"We may also add a label to certain digitally created or altered content that creates a particularly high risk of misleading people on a matter of public importance," says Meta.

In a May 2024 "adversarial threat report" by Meta, the company said, "So far, we have not seen novel GenAI-driven tactics that would impede our ability to disrupt the adversarial networks behind them."

TikTok says it does not allow "harmful misinformation" on its platform and says that it has "robust policies around specific types of misinformation like medical, climate change, and election misinformation, as well as misleading AI-generated content, conspiracy theories, and public safety issues like natural disasters."

X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, says on its website that users "may not share synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm ('misleading media'). "

"In addition, we may label posts containing misleading media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context," X says.

These policies, though, are not always enough.

Earlier this year, graphic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift went viral on X, with a post garnering 45 million views before it was finally taken down 17 hours later.

X, which is owned by Elon Musk, blocked searches for the popstar in the aftermath.