Eviction bans were supposed to keep tenants in their homes amid the pandemic. But an investigation found landlords pressured tenants, especially immigrant workers, to move out when they couldn’t pay.… Read More
Although Stephen King didn’t write specifically for young readers, the same ethos propels his work and explains his devoted teenage audience. King novels turn unsettling truths about the darkness of human nature into literal monsters, then let adolescent protagonists defeat them, granting teens a power that they may not find in other aspects of their lives.
Every Friday in the Books Briefing, we thread together Atlantic stories on books that share similar ideas.
Know other book lovers who might like this guide? Forward them this email.
What We’re Reading
Maurice Sendak scared children because he loved them
“His lush visual idiom managed to evoke the strange—and sometimes malign—intensity of real childhood, as fey, unruly protagonists sparred with adversaries (fanged monsters and imperfect parents). All his work demonstrates a strong desire, and uncanny ability, to capture the eerie vividness of youth
In the United States, nutrition practice laws vary by state. Depending on the degree or certificate you have obtained, the type of practice you can open and the type of advice you can give change based on where you live.
Nursing homes have been overwhelmed by the coronavirus. Residents account for more than a quarter of all COVID-19 deaths nationwide. The industry says that facilities have also been overwhelmed by costs, and they’re asking for billions in aid from the federal government.
But recent studies suggest that for-profit ownership may have endangered residents by skimping on care, while funneling cash to owners and investors.
A chain of Midwestern nursing homes called Aperion Care provides a good example of the way for-profit nursing homes are run and why that business model is is coming under scrutiny in the wake of the pandemic. Their 45 facilities, mostly in Illinois and Indiana, get low ratings from the
To grasp the significance of the suit, think back to the Obama administration’s decision not to take antitrust action against Google in 2012, despite the urging of career officials at the Federal Trade Commission. If Barr’s suit seems driven by politics, so was the Obama-era inaction. Google had built a sturdy alliance with the Obama White House. Its employees contributed more to Obama’s reelection campaign than any other company, except Microsoft. That campaign contracted with a firm owned by Google’s chair, Eric Schmidt, for data analytics—and on Election Night in Chicago, Schmidt personally oversaw the analysis operation.
For a time, Google mastered the byways of Washington with its army of lobbyists. It helped shape the capital’s attitude toward Silicon Valley. Washington accepted Google’s monopoly, because it swallowed the company’s arguments about so-called network effects. That is, elite opinion came to believe that the architecture of the internet made it natural