I am glad to see you returning to the NY Times. I have been a continuous subscriber to the NY Times now for 65 years since my first subscription at age 10. That first subscription was earned by delivering the NY Times daily to teachers classrooms in my elementary school. I cannot imagine my day beginning without a cup of coffee and the NY Times. I also will say that you have long been among my most favored journalists and I have been a regular subscriber to "On the Trail with Nick Kristoff" for quite some time. Please continue to reserve some time for your Substack writing as well as your contributions to the Times. They are also an important part of keeping me thinking about our world.
My ex and I have been continuous NYT subscribers for 55 years, and for as long as you've been writing, your column has always been the first one I've searched out.
I will never forget your June 13th 1989 article about Tiananmen Square, or that picture of you and Sheryl on June 4th 2014 recalling the events of that day.
You write with so much heart, and in doing so you capture all of ours.
54 years, thanks to getting the start off my brothers paper route benefit. I wonder how big this pre teen to senior club is. I don't know how you will keep up with On the Trail but I await the next installment.
Please do an extensive piece on the under-reported environmental damage to Ukraine from the war.
From released teratogens, to asbestos from destroyed buildings, from heavy metals from shells to broken sewage facilities, from burning chemical plant to burning forests....
I hope that your book is honest about the effects of policies that are considered "progressive" which may not be achieving their intended results. We need honesty about policy, not dogma.
For instance, we need honest discussion about the pros and cons of Oregon's drug decriminalization law. How does this law compare with that of Portugal? How do our cultures compare, and how do the laws compare?
We need to examine what works to reduce homelessness (a LOT of sustained cooperation and coordination in state, county, and locality, from what I can tell - as well as laws which compel the government to take action, such as not permitting sleeping in public places). We need to examine the culture of criminality which establishes itself in some places.
We need humane laws which help facilitate better outcomes, not pre-ordained dogma without concern for outcomes. A permissive stance towards drugs and crime is unlikely to yield positive outcomes, as is a punitive authoritarian approach. We need critical thinking about the criminal justice system, not just blanket repudiations of it and not just mindless endorsements of it. The focus should be on learning, on reconciliation, on changing of behaviors from harmful to healthy. There are approaches like "restorative justice," which seeks to meaningfully address harms to each other.
We need compassionate, humane, and critically informed approaches to all of our issues, such as transgender issues - especially regarding children.
We need to examine the premise of equity. Does such an idea impose motivation to manipulate outcomes? Are we being lazy to address the problems which people face contributing to their struggles, and just pointing to vague notions of "institutional racism," law enforcement, and other boogeymen?
What should we do about immigration? It has hardly been discussed by the Times recently, while it is relentlessly being trumpeted as a national emergency on the political Right.
We need a strong defense of our democratic system. It is becoming doubtful that we as a nation will be able to conduct valid elections which are honored, moving forward.
We need a viable path to clean energy. Is there one? What technology can we use or develop to reduce and eliminate greenhouse emissions? Can we save the forests of this planet - home to biodiversity and are a critical part of the lungs of this planet?
I feel that the the New York Times opinion articles are often out of touch. They feel like glossy magazine pieces by people who are tangentially discussing issues of the day. You have a rich history of exploring issues faced by people all over the globe. I hope you turn your critical eye to this nation, using compassion, evidence, and dialogue.
Very glad that you are back writing for the Times. One issue that I would request you to focus on is Pediactric cancer and the woeful lack of funding for childhood cancer treatment. Cancer is the leading cause of youth mortality in our country - everyday a busload of young people are diagnosed with cancer and 50% of these children do not make it. The treatment for this disease is so horrendous (they are more than 50 years old in most cases) and cruel, causing more trauma to these young bodies. There are no safe detection mechanisms either - in many cases, the exposure to all the radiation leads to additional cancer along with relapses of the original cancer type. The families who have lost their babies or are helplessly watching them suffer are the ones who are stepping up and trying to fund raise for additional research into more humane treatment and detection. We are failing our young people. Thank you again for all that you do.
Not to minimize the trauma of pediatric cancer, but I believe you are mistaken: according to the NE JOURNAL OF medicine: “ firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.”.
YAHOO!!!! Best news I've heard in ages! Welcome back, Nick. Looking forward to your new book and to the return of your NYT columns. Have been a fan of yours for years, read all your books and rely on your annual suggestions for worthy causes to donate to. Thank you so much for your many gifts.
Great good judgment on the part of the NYT re-signing the Babe Ruth of journalists. That opinion page has been soggy since Nick left, filled with thumb-suckers and no hard-won facts. For sure, Nick has strong opinions, too, an endless compassion for those being ground down by life. Times readers benefit from Oregon’s folly in not electing Nick governor, no matter that he has better fix on the state’s woes and promising solutions than anyone else around. Nick, we’ve missed you! — Faithful NYT reader
FINALLY some good news. So happy that my favorite columnist is coming back—no one else writes so thoughtfully and passionately about adopting mine-detecting rats (and so many other things). Welcome back, Nick!
This is the best news!!! Your voice on the op-ed pages of the NYT has been greatly missed, and it's exciting to imagine what new perspectives you have gained these past months that you will bring to us, your eager readers. Welcome back! And the doors to political engagement will be open to you, especially if the voters in Oregon have any sense, once your residency requirement is met.
excellent news that you're rejoining the NYT, but please remain in Oregon and consider another run at the governorship. You'll have my vote
Yes! You belong at the TIMES and on the farm in Oregon and in the Governor’s office.
Yes!!!! Absolutely!!!
Wish he could be GOVERNOR now… OREGON SOO NEEDS HIM!!!
I am glad to see you returning to the NY Times. I have been a continuous subscriber to the NY Times now for 65 years since my first subscription at age 10. That first subscription was earned by delivering the NY Times daily to teachers classrooms in my elementary school. I cannot imagine my day beginning without a cup of coffee and the NY Times. I also will say that you have long been among my most favored journalists and I have been a regular subscriber to "On the Trail with Nick Kristoff" for quite some time. Please continue to reserve some time for your Substack writing as well as your contributions to the Times. They are also an important part of keeping me thinking about our world.
Wow! There can't be many people who have subscribed continuously to The Times for 65 years! I'm honored that i'm among your favorites there.
My ex and I have been continuous NYT subscribers for 55 years, and for as long as you've been writing, your column has always been the first one I've searched out.
I will never forget your June 13th 1989 article about Tiananmen Square, or that picture of you and Sheryl on June 4th 2014 recalling the events of that day.
You write with so much heart, and in doing so you capture all of ours.
So grateful
54 years, thanks to getting the start off my brothers paper route benefit. I wonder how big this pre teen to senior club is. I don't know how you will keep up with On the Trail but I await the next installment.
Congratulations.
Please do an extensive piece on the under-reported environmental damage to Ukraine from the war.
From released teratogens, to asbestos from destroyed buildings, from heavy metals from shells to broken sewage facilities, from burning chemical plant to burning forests....
We need to hear more, and in more detail.
Congratulations!
I hope that your book is honest about the effects of policies that are considered "progressive" which may not be achieving their intended results. We need honesty about policy, not dogma.
For instance, we need honest discussion about the pros and cons of Oregon's drug decriminalization law. How does this law compare with that of Portugal? How do our cultures compare, and how do the laws compare?
We need to examine what works to reduce homelessness (a LOT of sustained cooperation and coordination in state, county, and locality, from what I can tell - as well as laws which compel the government to take action, such as not permitting sleeping in public places). We need to examine the culture of criminality which establishes itself in some places.
We need humane laws which help facilitate better outcomes, not pre-ordained dogma without concern for outcomes. A permissive stance towards drugs and crime is unlikely to yield positive outcomes, as is a punitive authoritarian approach. We need critical thinking about the criminal justice system, not just blanket repudiations of it and not just mindless endorsements of it. The focus should be on learning, on reconciliation, on changing of behaviors from harmful to healthy. There are approaches like "restorative justice," which seeks to meaningfully address harms to each other.
We need compassionate, humane, and critically informed approaches to all of our issues, such as transgender issues - especially regarding children.
We need to examine the premise of equity. Does such an idea impose motivation to manipulate outcomes? Are we being lazy to address the problems which people face contributing to their struggles, and just pointing to vague notions of "institutional racism," law enforcement, and other boogeymen?
What should we do about immigration? It has hardly been discussed by the Times recently, while it is relentlessly being trumpeted as a national emergency on the political Right.
We need a strong defense of our democratic system. It is becoming doubtful that we as a nation will be able to conduct valid elections which are honored, moving forward.
We need a viable path to clean energy. Is there one? What technology can we use or develop to reduce and eliminate greenhouse emissions? Can we save the forests of this planet - home to biodiversity and are a critical part of the lungs of this planet?
I feel that the the New York Times opinion articles are often out of touch. They feel like glossy magazine pieces by people who are tangentially discussing issues of the day. You have a rich history of exploring issues faced by people all over the globe. I hope you turn your critical eye to this nation, using compassion, evidence, and dialogue.
Welcome back Nick, I’ve been a loyal follower since Poland 1981, hoped your return would come before too long but sorry it came the way it did. Mary
Congratulations on your new/old endeavor. May you always follow your heart!
Very glad that you are back writing for the Times. One issue that I would request you to focus on is Pediactric cancer and the woeful lack of funding for childhood cancer treatment. Cancer is the leading cause of youth mortality in our country - everyday a busload of young people are diagnosed with cancer and 50% of these children do not make it. The treatment for this disease is so horrendous (they are more than 50 years old in most cases) and cruel, causing more trauma to these young bodies. There are no safe detection mechanisms either - in many cases, the exposure to all the radiation leads to additional cancer along with relapses of the original cancer type. The families who have lost their babies or are helplessly watching them suffer are the ones who are stepping up and trying to fund raise for additional research into more humane treatment and detection. We are failing our young people. Thank you again for all that you do.
Not to minimize the trauma of pediatric cancer, but I believe you are mistaken: according to the NE JOURNAL OF medicine: “ firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.”.
YAHOO!!!! Best news I've heard in ages! Welcome back, Nick. Looking forward to your new book and to the return of your NYT columns. Have been a fan of yours for years, read all your books and rely on your annual suggestions for worthy causes to donate to. Thank you so much for your many gifts.
This pastor says “Hallelujah!”
Great good judgment on the part of the NYT re-signing the Babe Ruth of journalists. That opinion page has been soggy since Nick left, filled with thumb-suckers and no hard-won facts. For sure, Nick has strong opinions, too, an endless compassion for those being ground down by life. Times readers benefit from Oregon’s folly in not electing Nick governor, no matter that he has better fix on the state’s woes and promising solutions than anyone else around. Nick, we’ve missed you! — Faithful NYT reader
Great news!! All the best to you. Looking forward as always to your mind-opening thoughts.
FINALLY some good news. So happy that my favorite columnist is coming back—no one else writes so thoughtfully and passionately about adopting mine-detecting rats (and so many other things). Welcome back, Nick!
This is the best news!!! Your voice on the op-ed pages of the NYT has been greatly missed, and it's exciting to imagine what new perspectives you have gained these past months that you will bring to us, your eager readers. Welcome back! And the doors to political engagement will be open to you, especially if the voters in Oregon have any sense, once your residency requirement is met.
His residency requirements were met, according to several retired supreme court justices and 2 former Secretarys of State.
Yes! so glad your work will be in the Times again. You contribute to making the world a kinder and better-informed place.
Please write more about solving the homeless problem and lack of affordable housing. It is on everybody’s mind here in Oakland, CA