• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleNov. 22, 2025, 1:52 PM ESTBy Kate ReillyTatiana Schlossberg, the daughter of Caroline Kennedy and Edwin Schlossberg and granddaughter of John F. Kennedy, has revealed her terminal cancer diagnosis in an essay published by The New Yorker on Saturday.The 35-year-old has acute myeloid leukemia, with a rare mutation called Inversion 3.Schlossberg said she was diagnosed on May 25, 2024, the same day she gave birth to her second child. Hours after delivery, her doctor noticed her abnormally high white-blood-cell count and moved her to another floor for further testing. She initially dismissed the possibility of cancer and was stunned when the diagnosis was confirmed, saying she had considered herself “one of the healthiest people” she knew. “This could not possibly be my life,” she wrote.Schlossberg spent five weeks at Columbia Presbyterian after her daughter’s birth before her blast-cell count dropped enough for her to begin chemotherapy at home. Her care later moved to Memorial Sloan Kettering, where she underwent a bone-marrow transplant and spent more than 50 days before returning home for more treatment.In January, Schlossberg joined a clinical trial for CAR T-cell therapy. She wrote that much of the treatment unfold from her hospital bed as her cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was nominated and confirmed as secretary of health and human services, a role she believes he was unqualified for.Schlossberg thanked her husband and her family for their support for countless days spent at her bedside.“My parents and my brother and sister, too, have been raising my children and sitting in my various hospital rooms almost every day for the last year and a half,” she added.Her brother, Jack Schlossberg, announced earlier this month that he is running for Congress. The 32-year-old is running for the New York City seat which has long been held by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who in September announced he will not seek re-election.Despite all of Schlossberg’s treatments, she said, the cancer continued to return.“During the latest clinical trial, my doctor told me that he could keep me alive for a year, maybe,” she wrote. “My first thought was that my kids, whose faces live permanently on the inside of my eyelids, wouldn’t remember me.”Schlossberg is now trying her best to be in the present with her children.By profession a writer, for several years Schlossberg was a reporter for the Science section of The New York Times where she covered climate change and the environment. Schlossberg’s essay comes on the 62nd anniversary of her grandfather’s assassination, adding her diagnosis to a long history of tragedy within the Kennedy family. JFK’s son, John F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy died in a plane crash in 1999.Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy who was assassinated in 1968, died in Oct. 2024 from complications from a stroke. She was 96.Kate ReillyKate Reilly is a news associate with NBC News.

admin - Latest News - November 22, 2025
admin
10 views 18 secs 0 Comments




Tatiana Schlossberg, the daughter of Caroline Kennedy and Edwin Schlossberg and granddaughter of John F. Kennedy, has revealed her terminal cancer diagnosis in an essay published by The New Yorker on Saturday



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Students celebrates deaf therapy dog's 9th birthday
NEXT
Trump: Zelenskyy can 'fight his little heart out' if he rejects peace plan
Related Post
October 24, 2025
Oct. 24, 2025, 11:24 AM EDTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s strategy to persuade the Supreme Court to uphold his sweeping tariffs is not subtle.To some opponents of his tariffs, Trump’s frequent use of apocalyptic rhetoric about his signature policy ahead of the Nov. 5 oral argument is an obvious attempt to influence the court by focusing on the potential consequences of a ruling against him.“I will tell you that’s one of the most important cases in the history of our country because if we don’t win that case, we will be a weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come,” Trump said at the White House on Oct. 15, in just one example of his repeated comments on the subject.Trump, who has a long history of harshly criticizing judges who rule against him, has even suggested he might attend the Supreme Court in person for the oral argument Nov. 5. There is no official record of any sitting president ever attending a Supreme Court argument, according to the court and the nonprofit Supreme Court Historical Society.The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment about Trump’s remarks, whether he intends to influence the court or if he will attend the oral argument.Trump threatens new tariffs on China02:33It is not the first time a president has used his bully pulpit to lean on the Supreme Court in a case crucial to his agenda. In 2012, President Barack Obama faced criticism when he said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.The court later that year narrowly upheld the law, which was Obama’s signature domestic achievement.Trump is known to take a keen interest in cases in which he is personally involved, including criminal and civil cases that were brought against him after he completed his first term as president. He frequently appeared in court for hearings in those cases, even when not required to.Last year, during his criminal trial in New York over “hush money” payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, the judge refused to allow Trump permission to attend Supreme Court oral arguments in April in the separate election interference case regarding the scope of presidential immunity. Trump secured a major win in that case.This time around, the court, with a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices Trump appointed, will be considering whether Trump had the power to unilaterally impose the tariffs under a law reserved for use in times of emergency called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Although the court has ruled in Trump’s favor on numerous occasions in the first few months of his term, experts believe the tariffs case is a closer call.Trump’s remarks over the course of this year reflect a consistent theme: In his view, the tariffs are raising so much revenue and are so important to the country that a court ruling saying that he does not have the authority to impose them would be cataclysmic.”If we win the tariff case, which hopefully we will, it’s vital to the interests of our country. We’re the wealthiest country there is. If we don’t, we’ll be struggling for years to come,” Trump said on the Fox News show “Sunday Morning Futures” on Oct 19.He has also weighed in on the litigation via his Truth Social feed.On Aug. 8, he said there would be a “Great Depression” if the tariffs were not upheld. Later that month, he said that it would be a “total disaster for the country” if they were struck down.Trump is also quick to accuse others of seeking to put pressure on the justices. On Thursday night, he posted that he was ending trade negotiations with Canada because he thought the country was trying to influence the Supreme Court to rule against him on tariffs via an ad sponsored by the province of Ontario.“They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” Trump wrote.Tariff revenues for the year have raised $174.04 billion, according to the most recent Treasury Department numbers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, on Sept. 7, told “Meet the Press” that the government would have to issue refunds for about half the tariff revenues it has collected if the administration loses at the Supreme Court.To some lawyers who oppose the tariffs, Trump’s remarks are easy to label.”It’s partial intimidation, it’s mostly trying to scare them in terms of consequences,” said Thomas Berry, a lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute.”Presumably he hopes these statements will influence the Supreme Court,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a lawyer at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat who, along with other state attorneys general and some small businesses, challenged the tariffs in court, said in a statement that Trump was only “right about one thing” in his public statements: It is a significant case on the scope of presidential power.”We can’t normalize this behavior. We have to draw a line in the sand and hold him accountable,” Rayfield added.Trump’s characterization of how bad the consequences would be if he loses the case is massively overstated, according to Maury Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank.”The rhetoric and hyperbole have no basis in fact,” he said. “Large swaths of the economy and all consumers would benefit if tariffs were lowered.”Goldman Sachs recently said that American consumers are bearing more than half the cost of tariffs, while companies have warned prices will start to increase as the impact of the tariffs are felt.Major companies like General Motors and Mattel have said they expect to take financial hits as a result of tariffs, while the impact on small businesses is even greater.The administration has both overestimated potential revenue from tariffs and used those projections to claim that Trump’s signature legislative victory, the “big, beautiful bill,” is largely revenue neutral, Obstfeld added.”The job of the courts is to interpret the law, not to save the government from the consequences of its own bad decisions,” he said.Trump’s focus on the potentially drastic consequences of a loss are echoed in court papers filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was previously one of the president’s personal lawyersThe opening paragraphs of the brief he filed outlining the government’s arguments use language that is just as colorful as Trump’s and sometimes quotes the president.His tone departs from the usual dry style of the Justice Department, which traditionally focuses on the technical legal arguments rather than colorful rhetoric.The tariffs, Sauer wrote, are “necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits” and limit the distribution of illegal drugs across the border by targeting countries including Mexico and Canada that, the administration alleges, have failed to stem trafficking. Sauer’s filing included a quotation from Trump saying that before he imposed the tariffs, the United States was “a dead country” but is now booming.”To the president, these cases present a stark choice,” Sauer wrote. “With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation.”Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News. Steve Kopack and Katherine Doyle contributed.
October 4, 2025
Judge sentences Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs to four years in prison
October 6, 2025
Trump's message to Americans amid shutdown
October 30, 2025
Oct. 30, 2025, 11:54 AM EDT / Updated Oct. 30, 2025, 12:24 PM EDTBy Gary Grumbach and David K. LiA former Virginia teacher told civil jurors on Thursday she thought she was dead or about to die in the moments after she was shot by a 6-year-old boy at school two years ago.Abigail Zwerner spoke slowly and at times struggled with her emotions, explaining how she was severely injured on Jan. 6, 2023, at Richneck Elementary in Newport News.“I thought I was dying, I thought I had died,” she told the jury of three men and six women. “I thought I was on my way to heaven or in heaven. But then it all got black.”The plaintiff’s testimony is at the heart of her $40 million civil lawsuit against former assistant principal Ebony Parker, who allegedly ignored several warnings about the boy who shot Zwerner.The attack was totally preventable had Parker acted on clear signs the boy posed a threat, Zwerner said in her civil complaint.The bullet, fired by the child, tore through Zwerner’s hand before it struck her in the chest, where it remains today. A doctor testified earlier in this trial that it’d be far more dangerous to remove that round than to leave it alone.To this day, Zwerner said she struggles with basic physical tasks. The plaintiff recalled having lunch recently with her lawyer and failing to open a bag of potato chips, after trying to rip it at different angles.“And I eventually asked you to open it, the same thing with water bottles,” Zwerner said.The psychological scars of the shooting are still fresh and painful, the plaintiff said.She recalled how loved ones had planned to see the movie “Hamilton” before breaking down the morning of, realizing there’d be scenes of dueling in the famous musical.“I felt like everything just came over my body,” the educator said. “I remember crying a lot, and I remember that afterwards.” Her family asked what she’d like to do in place of going to that movie. “I remember saying or telling them ‘nowhere,’ like I can’t go anywhere,” Zwerner said. “I just want to stay home. I’m not going anywhere today.” A Richneck teacher testified earlier this week that she told the assistant principal about the weapon three times after students had tipped her off about the boy having a gun in his backpack.Another teacher testified that she also shared similar information with Parker after a different student alerted her about the boy having a gun.Under cross-examination on Thursday, Parker’s attorney inferred that Zwerner, herself, could or should have taken more decisive action against the gun-wielding youngster.Zwerner testified that another teacher had told her she was going to report the child to Parker. At that point, Zwerner said she felt safe knowing that a superior was aware of the threat.“I didn’t (take any other action), honestly didn’t think twice,” she said. “ It was my understanding that the administration wouldn’t think twice as well when alerted about a potential gun in school.” The educator told NBC’s “TODAY” show, three months after the shooting that the attack left her with permanent emotional wounds.“I’m not sure when the shock will ever go away because of just how surreal it was and, you know, the vivid memories that I have of that day,” Zwerner said at the time. “I think about it daily. Sometimes I have nightmares.”When Zwerner originally filed her civil complaint, Parker, the school district and several other administrators were named as defendants. The case was eventually whittled down to Parker as the lone defendant.On paper, any civil verdict against Parker would be paid by the Virginia Risk Sharing Association (VRSA), an insurance pool made up of many public bodies statewide, including the Newport News School Board.This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.Gary GrumbachGary Grumbach is an NBC News legal affairs reporter, based in Washington, D.C.David K. LiSenior Breaking News Reporter
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved