choice

Few recent films have had quite the reversal of reputation as Karyn Kusama’s 2009 supernatural high-school thriller, which can now clearly be seen for the wise, witty gem it has always been. Overwhelmed at the time by the cultural backlash that swarmed both its star Megan Fox (fresh from the media firestorm of the “Transformers” franchise) and screenwriter Diablo Cody, after her meteoric ascent with the Oscar-winning “Juno,” initial audiences were unprepared for a savage horror-comedy about the traumas of navigating the world as a teenage girl. The bond of two best friends (Fox, Amanda Seyfried) is put to the test when, after a ritual sacrifice goes awry, one of them becomes a possessed succubus who must feed on human flesh. Kusama’s finely modulated direction keeps all the plates of the story spinning as the film moves between being funny, scary and surprisingly tender toward its characters. A conversation with Kusama, Fox and professor Tananarive Due, who specializes in horror, should make this a special evening.

“Jennifer’s Body” is playing Oct. 25 at the Academy Museum. Tickets here.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday warned Hamas “we will have no choice but to go in and kill them” if internal bloodshed persists in Gaza.

The grim warning from Trump came after he previously downplayed the internal violence in the territory since a ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas went into effect last week.

Trump said Tuesday that Hamas had taken out “a couple of gangs that were very bad” and had killed a number of gang members. “That didn’t bother me much, to be honest with you,” he said.

The president did not say how he would follow through on his threat posted on his Truth Social platform, and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment seeking clarity.

But Trump also made clear he had limited patience for the killings that Hamas was carrying out against rival factions inside the devastated territory.

“They will disarm, and if they don’t do so, we will disarm them, and it’ll happen quickly and perhaps violently,” Trump said.

The Hamas-run police maintained a high degree of public security after the militants seized power in Gaza 18 years ago while also cracking down on dissent. They largely melted away in recent months as Israeli forces seized large areas of Gaza and targeted Hamas security forces with airstrikes.

Powerful local families and armed gangs, including some anti-Hamas factions backed by Israel, stepped into the void. Many are accused of hijacking humanitarian aid and selling it for profit, contributing to Gaza’s starvation crisis.

The ceasefire plan introduced by Trump had called for all hostages — living and dead — to be handed over by a deadline that expired Monday. But under the deal, if that didn’t happen, Hamas was to share information about deceased hostages and try to hand them over as soon as possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Israel “will not compromise” and demanded that Hamas fulfill the requirements laid out in the ceasefire deal about the return of hostages’ bodies.

Hamas’ armed wing said in a statement Wednesday that the group honored the ceasefire’s terms and handed over the remains of the hostages it had access to.

The United States announced last week that it is sending about 200 troops to Israel to help support and monitor the ceasefire deal in Gaza as part of a team that includes partner nations and nongovernmental organizations. But U.S. officials have stressed that U.S. forces would not set foot in Gaza.

Israeli officials have also been angered by the pace of the return of the remains of dead hostages the militant group had been holding in captivity. Hamas had agreed to return 28 bodies as part of the ceasefire deal in addition to 20 living hostages, who were released earlier this week.

Hamas has assured the U.S. through intermediaries that it is working to return dead hostages, according to two senior U.S. advisors. The advisors, who were not authorized to comment publicly and briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, said they do not believe Hamas has violated the deal.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

Hunger is neither a natural condition of humankind nor an unavoidable tragedy: it is the result of choices made by governments and economic systems that have chosen to turn a blind eye to inequalities – or even of promoting them.

The same global order that denies 673 million people access to adequate food also enables a privileged group of just 3,000 billionaires to hold 14.6 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).

In 2024, the wealthiest nations helped drive the largest surge in military spending since the end of the Cold War, reaching $2.7 trillion that year. Yet they failed to deliver on their own commitment: to invest 0.7 percent of their GDP in concrete actions to promote development in poorer countries.

Today, we see situations not unlike those that prevailed 80 years ago, when the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations was created. Unlike then, however, we are not only witnessing the tragedies of war and hunger feeding into each other, but also facing the urgent climate crisis. And the international order established to address the challenges of 1945 is no longer sufficient to address today’s problems.

Global governance mechanisms must be reformed. We need to strengthen multilateralism, create investment flows that promote sustainable development, and ensure that states have the capacity to implement consistent public policies to fight hunger and poverty.

It is essential to include the poor in public budgets and the wealthy in the tax base. This requires tax justice and taxing the superrich, an issue we managed to include for the first time in the final declaration of the G20 Summit, held in November 2024, under Brazil’s Presidency. A symbolic but historic change.

We advocate for this practice around the world — and we are implementing it in Brazil. Our Parliament is about to approve substantial tax reform: for the first time in the country, there will be a minimum tax on the income of the wealthiest individuals, exempting millions of lower-income earners from paying income tax.

During our G20 Presidency, Brazil also proposed the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty. Although recent, the initiative already has 200 members — 103 countries and 97 partner foundations and organisations. This initiative is not just about exchanging experiences, but about mobilising resources and securing commitments.

With this alliance, we want to enable countries to implement public policies that truly reduce inequality and ensure the right to adequate food. Policies that deliver rapid results, as seen in Brazil after we made the fight against hunger a government priority in 2023.

Official data released just a few days ago show that we have lifted 26.5 million Brazilians out of hunger since the beginning of 2023. In addition, Brazil has been removed, for the second time, from the FAO’s Hunger Map, as laid out in its global report on food insecurity. A map we would not have returned to if the policies launched during my first two terms (2003-10) and President Dilma Rousseff’s (2011-16) had not been abandoned.

Behind these achievements lie a set of coordinated actions on multiple fronts. We have strengthened and expanded our national income transfer programme, which now reaches 20 million households and supports 8.5 million children aged six and below.

We have increased funding for free meals in public schools, benefitting 40 million students. Through public food procurement, we have secured income for small-scale family farmers, while offering free, nutritious meals to those who truly need them. In addition, we have expanded the free supply of cooking gas and electricity to low-income households, freeing up room in family budgets to strengthen food security.

None of these policies, however, is sustainable without an economic environment that drives them. When there are jobs and income, hunger loses its grip. That is why we have adopted an economic policy that prioritises wage increases, leading to the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded in Brazil. And to the lowest level of per capita household income inequality.

Brazil still has a long way to go before achieving full food security for its entire population, but the results confirm that state action can indeed overcome the scourge of hunger. These initiatives, however, depend on concrete shifts in global priorities: investing in development rather than in wars; prioritising the fight against inequality instead of restrictive economic policies that for decades have caused massive concentration of wealth; and facing the challenge of climate change with people at its core.

By hosting COP30 in the Amazon next month, Brazil wants to show that the fight against climate change and the fight against hunger must go hand in hand. In Belem, we aim to adopt a Declaration on Hunger, Poverty, and Climate that acknowledges the profoundly unequal impacts of climate change and its role in worsening hunger in certain regions of the world.

I will also take these messages to the World Food Forum and to the meeting of the Council of Champions of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, events I will have the honour of attending today, the 13th, in Rome, Italy. These are messages that show that change is urgent and possible. For humanity, which created the poison of hunger against itself, is also capable of producing its antidote.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

STRICTLY viewers have spotted a last minute wardrobe change as George Clarke danced his first Couple’s Choice – but did you see it?

Podcaster and social media personality George, 25, is competing on the show alongside new pro partner, Alexis Warr, 25.

4

4

George and Alexis took the floor tonight with their couple’s choice accompanied by Soda Pop from K-Pop Demon Hunters.

The lively hip-hop dance thrilled the audience but viewers spotted a last minute costume change.

Taking to social media one wrote: “Thank GOD the wig changed.”

Another added: “WHYD THEY GET RID OF THE WIG.”

While a third exclaimed: “Not George taking that ugly blue wig off.”

“The fact he said NO WIG for the show,” added another.

Wicked actress Cynthia Erivo praised the dancers and declared: “I am so proud of you because earlier I felt you were not taking yourself as seriously as you could.”

Shirley Ballas agreed and said: “You were flying like an angel.”

However, Anton Du Beke stated: “You came alive…but I thought it lacked a bit of edge.”

Craig Revel Horwood echoed this and said: “It needed to be sharper.”

But Oti Mabuse added: “You’re doing a beautiful job and keep going.”

When the scores came in George and Alexis received 6 points from Criag, 8 from Oti, 9 from Shirley and 8 from Anton giving them a respectable total of 31 points.

Cheers rose from the audience and the adorable pair looked very happy with their scores.

Meanwhile, viewers have branded the show’s latest judge shake-up awkward after a baffling decision.

Cynthia has spent the week working with the celebrities and their partners to help them with their performance and offering up her advice during their training.

However, when the live show kicked off, hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman confirmed that despite the huge hype surrounding Cynthia being on the panel, the actress was barred from scoring the couples.

As she wasn’t allowed a paddle to mark the pairs, Cynthia found herself sitting awkwardly among the judging panel as the other four judges offered up their scores.

It left fans at home begging the BBC to let Cynthia have a paddle last-minute after branding her inclusion on the panel “awkward”.

4

4

When people in the U.S. think about flying, Delta Air Lines (DAL 0.74%) and United Airlines (UAL -1.01%) might be the first companies that come to mind. They both have large market capitalizations and many travelers have flown with one or the other, but they employ very different strategies. Because of this difference, investors can tell which airline is truly first-class.

Different tracks

United CEO Scott Kirby is betting on initiatives such as adding planes and making upgrades like better in-flight Wi-Fi. I like this plan, but it also has risks. Operational mistakes, rising labor costs, and headwinds in other countries are cutting into United’s profits.

Delta, led by CEO Ed Bastian, is acting differently. Instead of rushing to get more planes, Delta is focusing on making customers happier and being careful with money. The airline is investing in things like Delta Concierge AI, which is supposed to make travel feel more personal and smooth. Its business model counts on premium seats and loyalty programs. Almost 60% of Delta’s money now comes from these sought-after seats and perks.

Delta is often ranked high in customer surveys and for being on time. This good reputation helps it avoid the price wars that can quickly hurt profits in the airline business.

A cleaner balance sheet

Airlines traditionally carry a lot of debt, but Delta is different here, too. In the most recent quarter, Delta had about $16 billion in net debt, equating to a 30 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio (which shows how much of the business’s value has been financed with debt). This is quite a lot, but it is less than United’s $18 billion, which gives it a 36 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio.

This difference is important. Delta has its best credit rating in years, and leaders have said that controlling debt is a main goal. United, on the other hand, has more debt, which makes it riskier if fuel prices go up, travel decreases, or international expansion plans run into hiccups and the business is pressured.

Hubs vs. horizons

The two airlines also use their networks differently. Delta has strong hubs in cities such as Atlanta, which allow it to group flights together and run its operations smoothly. United is more focused on international growth, which could be beneficial if everything goes well, but it is more complex and risky. Recent global issues, including tariffs and travel restrictions have revealed how fragile this type of growth can be.

By the numbers

The financial results confirm the story. Delta regularly has higher operating and profit margins than United, and it still manages to increase revenue at a steady rate. It also makes more free cash flow, which is needed for a company to pay down debt and give money back to shareholders. Delta’s stock yields about 1.3% at current prices, while United does not pay a dividend.

Even with its stronger financial base, Delta’s stock is slightly cheaper than United’s. Delta’s valuation is about 6.9 based on enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), compared to 10.6 for United. Investors are paying less for a company that makes more reliable profits and is better managed.

What matters for investors

United’s growth plan sounds exciting, and it might work if international markets do well and its operations run smoothly. But there are a lot of risky ifs. For investors who want more reliable returns, Delta’s mix of reliability, profits, and a strong financial base makes it a safer choice.

Delta could be harmed by rising fuel prices, labor disputes, or a decrease in travel. But compared to United’s game plan, the company seems better prepared to handle potential complications without causing trouble for shareholders.

If you had to pay more for a dollar of earnings from either of these airlines, which would it be: The one pursuing growth with a lot of debt, or the one quietly producing higher margins, happier customers, and a stronger financial base?

For me, the choice is clear. Delta isn’t just another airline stock — it’s the first-class option in the sector.

Jun Ho has no position in the mentioned stocks. The Motley Fool recommends Delta Air Lines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

While a joint partnership between Brazilian aerospace company Embraer and L3Harris Technologies to outfit Embraer’s KC-390 Millennium tanker-transport with U.S. systems and a custom refueling boom was formally declared dead late last year, the company is advancing a fresh effort to sell the Millennium to the Air Force.

You can read all about the compelling case for a boom-equipped KC-390 that fits within the Air Force’s emerging battle concept in this past feature.

At the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber conference this week, Embraer displayed a model of the twin jet medium-lift aircraft in full Air Force livery and touted its American-made parts. With more than half the components built in the U.S., including a flight data recorder from L3Harris, and much of the guts, like its V2500-E5 engine’s avionics made by RTX-owned companies, the aircraft is Buy American Act compliant and capable of serving as as a tactical transport or a tanker in the austere environments where the Air Force expects to concentrate significant aspects of its future combat operations. The KC-390 has loosely similar lifting capabilities as the C-130J Super Hercules.

Embraer is also evaluating site locations in the U.S. for a KC-390 manufacturing facility, the company said. It now operates out of nine U.S. locations, including Jacksonville, Florida, where it conducts final assembly for the A-29 Super Tucano.

The KC-390 marks a decade since its first flight this year and now serves 11 international customers, many of them within NATO, Frederico Lemos, chief commercial officer for Defense and Security, told The War Zone. While Embraer has made public overtures to sell a variant of the aircraft to the U.S. Air Force for several years, it’s now touting an additional selling point: a U.S. demonstration tour completed earlier this year, in which the Millennium participated in a spectrum of defense, disaster response, and space-focused events.

“The aircraft showcased its unmatched versatility and readiness to support the U.S. Department of Defense in addressing critical air refueling challenges,” Embraer said in a release distributed at the tradeshow. “Its performance and cargo capacity also make it ideal for rescue missions, space logistics, and special operations.”

Lemos cited one successful test last July in which U.S. and Portuguese airmen at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, conducted a cold-load training – meaning a loading exercise with the engines off – on a KC-390 using a U.S. Army M142 HIMARS launcher. Embraer saw this as not only a validation of the load capacity of the aircraft but also a mission proof-of-concept.

“They’re able to prepare the airfields, deploy the HIMARS, come back to the airplane and move away as fast as possible,” Lemos said. 

Lemos said the KC-390 is capable of taking off on a strip as short as 1,000 meters (3,280 feet). The company also claims the aircraft can be reconfigured for all nine missions it offers – from aerial resupply and aerial assault to special operations, search-and-rescue, and medevac – within three hours. 

It’s not clear if the recent mission demonstration tour has made the Air Force any more interested in investing in the aircraft. For the tanking mission, the service this year reaffirmed its commitment to keeping its KC-135 in service until at least the 2050s, though Air Mobility Command Commander Gen. John Lamontagne said in a Defense One interview that doing so may require a recapitalization program. The yet-to-be-selected Next-Gen Air Refueling System, or NGAS, is ultimately expected to replace the KC-135.

Still Embraer sees daylight to make its case.

“We see that the tanking needs of the U.S. Air Force are there. There’s an aging fleet that is coming to the end of its service life, and the challenges [of] the mission that we see for the future is different from the past. So you need the combination of capabilities. You need strategic tanking, but you also need tactical tanking, and more than that, you need to have assets that can do multiple missions from areas that you don’t have,” he said. “All the logistics and preparedness in terms of airfields that you used to have. You need to operate from remote locations, small islands, small airfields. And the KC-390 fits in that role …So more missions with less assets that are more affordable and with a lower life-cycle cost throughout its life.”

Embraer also touts KC-390’s readiness for the Air Force with its full operational capability status and its contemporary design, with high customizability and open-architecture construction to meet customers needs.

“You can select the mission mode, so the behavior of the aircraft depends on the type of mission,” Lemos said. “You have a lot of connectivity, compatible with the latest generation of fighters … we have ISR that can be used for reconnaissance but also for laser designation and target identification, to be combined with kinetic effects … or to send information to other fighters or other assets in the zone.”

Lemos wouldn’t describe any feedback he’s getting from the Air Force on its Millennium pitch, but he acknowledged modifications would need to be made.

“What we need to do is to listen, from the Air Force, what specific connectivity they would like to add on top of the 390 to make it more interoperable,” he said.

The boom may also make a return. While current product imagery of the KC-390 show drogues, Lemos said earlier this year, according to a Breaking Defense report, that it would be willing to self-fund a refueling boom for an Air Force tanker variant – effectively a necessity, given the number of Air Force planes requiring one – if the service NGAS assessments made space for the possibility of Millennium adoption.

Contact the editor: [email protected]

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Kamala Harris says she would have picked Pete Buttigieg as her running mate last year but America wasn’t ready for the pairing, according to an excerpt of her new book.

Harris writes in an excerpt of “107 Days” published Wednesday in The Atlantic that former President Biden’s transportation secretary was her “first choice,” adding that he “would have been an ideal partner — if I were a straight white man.”

“But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk,” she writes.

Her thoughts on selecting a running mate come as potential 2028 contenders begin traveling the U.S. in the early days of the second Trump administration.

In the book excerpt, she writes about her love of working with Buttigieg and her friendship with him and his husband, but that the two of them on the Democratic ticket would have been too risky.

“And I think Pete also knew that — to our mutual sadness,” she writes.

It wasn’t immediately clear at what point she decided against Buttigieg, a former South Bend, Indiana, mayor and former intelligence officer in the Navy Reserves. Buttigieg emerged as a national political figure during his 2020 presidential run in which he finished atop the Iowa caucuses.

The Associated Press didn’t immediately hear back from a spokesperson for Buttigieg.

After Biden dropped out of the presidential race in July 2024 following a disastrous debate performance, Harris was left to head up the Democratic ticket.

She picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate after his attack line against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, then-Ohio Sen. JD Vance — “These guys are just weird” — spread widely. They ultimately lost.

Harris’ book, whose title is referencing the length of her condensed presidential campaign, is set to be published by Simon & Schuster on Tuesday.

There were two questions the 77th Emmy Awards, held Sunday night at the Peacock Theater in downtown Los Angeles, had to answer, other than who would win what. (It’s an honor just to be nominated.)

One was how the show, a glittery evening devoted to the most popular of popular arts, would play against a world gone mad. The other, not distinct from the first, was how first-time host Nate Bargatze would do.

The ceremony is hosted by a round robin of the major networks, and this year the honor fell to CBS, whose corporate overlord, Paramount, has come to represent capitulation to the Trump administration, settling a baseless lawsuit in what is widely viewed as a payoff to grease the wheels of its merger with Skydance and promising to eliminate its DEI protocols. Executive interference in the news department amid an apparent rightward turn has led to the resignations of “60 Minutes” producer Bill Owens and CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon. And there’s the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show,” the timing of which some have found suspicious.

But if your goal was to avoid insulted celebrities, social media outrage or petulant notes from the White House, you could have done no better than to hire Bargatze, a clean, calm, classical, noncontroversial, nonpolitical, very funny, very successful comedian. Bargatze, who has been in comedy since 2002, saw his career explode over the last few years; his appeal is not so much mainstream, which is to say soft-edged, as it is broad — something for everybody.

The show opened quite brilliantly — perhaps confusingly, if you had missed Bargatze’s “Washington’s Dream” sketches on “Saturday Night Live” on which the routine was closely modeled, including the presence of Mikey Day, Bowen Yang and James Austin Johnson — with the host as Philo T. Farnsworth, “the inventor of television,” foreseeing the medium’s less than sensible future. First presenter Stephen Colbert followed immediately to a standing ovation and chants of his name. “While I have your attention, is anyone hiring? I have 200 very qualified candidates with me tonight who will be available in June.”

Then the host introduced his much publicized, one would say quintessentially Bargatzean, gimmick. To keep acceptance speeches short, he would donate $100,000 to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America; $1,000 per second would be deducted for anyone going over the allotted 45 seconds. Money would be added to the pot for anyone running short. (J.B. Smoove, a former Boys Club member, was a sort of co-sponsor, in the audience with a young boy and girl.) This efficiency made professional sense, though it had the potential to put a lid on what is usually the most interesting, unruly, moving, unpredictable part of the show. (If anyone had thought for a second, it also spelled trouble: Try talking for what you imagine is 45 seconds. You will be wrong.)

As it happened, the state of the world was addressed, sidelong and directly. Presenter Julianne Nicholson said of living in a post-apocalyptic bunker in “Paradise,” “compared to headlines that’s positively feel-good TV.” Jeff Hiller, winning supporting actor in a comedy series for “Somebody Somewhere,” thanked the Duplass brothers “for writing a show of connection and love in this time when compassion is seen as a weakness.” “Last Week Tonight” senior writer Daniel O’Brien dedicated their second award to “all writers of political comedy while that is still a type of show that is allowed to exist.” And in a generational echo of their “Hacks” characters, fourth-time winner Jean Smart (who has won seven Emmys overall) ended her acceptance speech saying, “Let’s be good to each other, just be good to each other,” while co-star and first-time winner Hannah Einbinder, finished with, “I just want to say: Go Birds, f— ICE, and free Palestine.” Going way over the 45-second limit, she promised to pay the difference on the tote board.

After Einbeinder, the most direct acknowledgment of current bad events came from Academy Chair and CEO Cris Abrego, speaking of the Governors Award given the week before to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting. In a highly quotable speech, he noted how “Congress had voted to defund it and silence yet another cultural institution.” He continued, “In a time when division dominates the headlines, storytelling still has the power to unite us … In times of cultural regression [it reminds] us what’s at stake and what can still be achieved,” and he rattled off a number of much loved shows that challenged the status quo. “In a moment like this, neutrality is not enough. … Culture does not come from the top down, it rises from the bottom up. … Let’s make sure that culture is not a platform for the privileged but a public good for all.” The stars in the audience nodded approvingly.

There were also some pure delights among the bedrock of desultory scripted banter and unimpressive tributes to old shows (“Law & Order: SUV,” “The Golden Girls”). Reunited “Everybody Loves Raymond” co-stars Ray Romano and Brad Garrett, presenting the award for comedy series, recaptured the essence of their television brotherhood. Jennifer Coolidge, presenting the award for lead supporting actress in a comedy, sounded like she’d walked in from a Christopher Guest film. “Between us, I was actually hoping to be nominated for you tonight for my work on this season of ‘The Pitt.’ I played a horny grandmother having a colonoscopy during a power outage and I had to play a lot of levels. I even had to do my own prep.” She went on, after a while, to tell the nominees that winning “is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s really not… I thought I had gotten really close with my fellow nominees especially after I won but I’m pretty sure they removed me from the group chat.”

The inevitable losses incurred by Bargatze’s charity gimmick provided a sort of running joke at the host’s expense, which he managed quite well, while some winners made a game of trying to put money back on the board. But the longer it went on, the more pressure it put on the winners to be short. Eventually, the show found its natural level, as winners said what they needed to, or much of it, and the count dropped tens of thousands of dollars past zero. For everyone but the bean counters, the least important thing about an awards show is it running on time; in any case, it was only a few minutes over.

And, as one might have expected, Bargatze — who made it through the three hours in a way that served the event and his own down-home ethos — paid the originally promised $100,000 and added a $250,000 tip.

President Trump declared Tuesday that federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., should seek the death penalty for murders committed in the capital, claiming without explanation that “we have no choice.”

“That’s a very strong preventative,” he said of his decision. “I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have it.”

Trump’s pronouncement is about much more than deterring killings, though. With speed and brazenness, Trump seems intent on creating a new, federal arrest and detention system outside of existing norms, aimed at everyday citizens and controlled by his whims. The death penalty is part of it, but stomping on civil rights is at the heart of it — ruthlessly exploiting anxiety about crime to aim repression at whatever displeases him, from immigration protesters to murderers.

This administration “is using the words of crime and criminals to get themselves a permission structure to erode civil rights and due processes across our criminal, legal and immigration systems in ways that I think should have everyone alarmed,” Rena Karefa-Johnson told me. She’s a former public defender who now works with Fwd.us, a bipartisan criminal justice advocacy group.

Authoritarians love the death penalty, and have long used it to repress not crime, but dissent. It is, after all, both the ultimate power and the ultimate fear, that the ruler of the state holds the lives of his people in his hands.

Though we are far from such atrocities, Spain’s purge of “communists” and other dissenters under Francisco Franco, Rodrigo Duterte’s extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in the Philippines (though the death penalty remains illegal there) and the routine executions, even of journalists, under the repressive rulers in Saudi Arabia are chilling examples.

What each of those regimes shares in common with this moment in America is the rhetoric of making a better society — often by purging perceived threats to order — even if that requires force, or the loss of rights.

Suddenly, violent criminals become no different than petty criminals, and petty criminals become no different than immigrants or protesters. They are all a threat to a nostalgic lost glory of the homeland that must be restored at any cost, animals that only understand force.

“We have no choice.”

The result is that the people become, if not accustomed to masked agents and the military on our streets, too scared to protest it, fearful they will become the criminal target, the hunted animal.

Already, the National Guard in D.C. is carrying live weapons. With great respect to the women and men who serve in the Guard, and who no doubt individually serve with honor, they are not trained for domestic law enforcement. Forget the legalities, the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act, which should prevent troops from policing American citizens, and does prevent them from making arrests.

Who do we want these soldiers to shoot? Who have they been told to shoot? A kid with a can of spray paint? A pickpocket? A drug dealer? A flag burner? A sandwich thrower?

We don’t even know what their orders are. What choices they will have to make.

But we do know that police do not walk around openly holding their guns, and certainly do not stroll with rifles. For civilian law enforcement, their guns are defensive weapons, and they are trained to use them as such.

Few walking by these troops, even the most law abiding, can fail to feel the power of those weapons at the ready. It is a visceral knowledge that to provoke them could mean death. That is a powerful form of repression, meant to stop dissent through fear of repercussion.

It is a power that Trump is building on multiple fronts. After declaring his “crime emergency” in D.C., Trump mandated a serious change in the mission of the National Guard.

He ordered every state to train soldiers on “quelling civil disturbances,” and to have soldiers ready to rapidly mobilize in case of protests. That same executive order also creates a National Guard force ready to deploy nationwide at the president’s command — presumably taking away states’ rights to decide when to utilize their troops, as happened in California.

Trump has already announced his intention to send them to Chicago, called Baltimore a “hellhole” that also may be in need and falsely claimed that, “in California, you would’ve not had the Olympics had I not sent in the troops” because “there wouldn’t be anything left” without their intervention.

Retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, told ABC that “the administration is trying to desensitize the American people to get used to American armed soldiers in combat vehicles patrolling the streets of America. “

Manner called the move “extremely disturbing.”

Add to that Trump’s desire to imprison opponents. In recent days, the FBI raided the home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a Republican who has criticized Trump, especially on his policy toward Ukraine. Then Trump attempted to fire Lisa D. Cook, a Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve board, after accusing her of mortgage fraud in another apparent attempt to bend that independent agency to his will on the economy.

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on social media that progressive billionaire George Soros and his son Alex should be charged under federal racketeering laws for “their support of Violent Protests.”

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to “BREATHE,” and be FREE,” Trump wrote. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you!”

Consider yourselves threatened, West Coast friends.

But of course, we are already living under that thunder. Dozens of average citizens are facing serious charges in places including Los Angeles for their participation in immigration protests.

Whether they are found guilty or not, their lives are upended by the anxiety and expense of facing such prosecutions. And thousands are being rounded up and deported, at times seemingly grabbed solely for the color of their skin, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguably the most Trump-loyal law enforcement agency, sees its budget balloon to $45 billion, enough to keep 100,000 people detained at a time.

Despite Trump’s maelstrom of dread-inducing moves, resistance is alive, well and far from futile.

A new Quinnipiac University national poll found that 56% of voters disapprove of the National Guard being deployed in D.C.

This week, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for a second time failed to convince a grand jury to indict a man who threw a submarine sandwich at federal officers — proof that average citizens not only are sane, but willing to stand up for what is right.

That comes after a grand jury three times rejected the same kind of charge against a woman who was arrested after being shoved against a wall by an immigration agent.

Californians will decide this in November whether to redraw their electoral maps to put more Democrats in Congress. Latino leaders in Chicago are protesting possible troops there. People are refusing to allow fear to define their actions.

Turns out, we do have a choice.

Are you a Walmart (WMT -1.18%) person or a Costco (COST -1.18%) person?

When it comes to shoppers, the two groups tend to be mutually exclusive, with many Americans swearing by one and swearing off the other.

But for investors, the question is a bit different: They want to know which they should put money into.

And that question is more relevant today than it’s been in a while. Many economists expect President Trump’s tariffs to start pushing the price of groceries — from bananas and coffee to soda and beer — higher in the coming months. The Tax Foundation expects tariffs to impact nearly 75% of U.S. food imports.

If and when prices of groceries rise, both Walmart and Costco are expected to benefit, as many Americans will trade down to retailers that emphasize low prices. Plus, because they’re so large, both retailers have significant supply chain leverage that should allow them to push back on higher prices from suppliers — to an extent, at least.

Walmart is quite a bit larger than Costco, with a market cap of $778 billion, versus $441 billion for Costco. Walmart has more than 10,000 stores on four continents and is the world’s largest retailer by sales. Costco is the world’s third-largest retailer; it has a membership model, with roughly 900 locations and 79.6 million paid household members and 37.6 million paid executive memberships. While they sell all kinds of items, Walmart and Costco rank as grocery behemoths.

Costco stock is up roughly 6% this year as of Aug. 21 and 181% over the past five years, while Walmart stock has gained roughly 8% year-to-date and 123% over five years.

Strong inflation era results

Walmart and Costco often do well when inflation pushes prices higher and shoppers look for bargains.

From January 2022 to February 2023, when year-over-year headline inflation ranged from 6% to 9.1%, Walmart kept the increase in grocery prices to 3%, compared to average price increases of 7.5% or more at rivals like Amazon, Kroger, and Target, according to a Reuters analysis. Walmart’s size and buying power help it force suppliers to keep prices lower.

As a result, in its fiscal 2024, ended Jan. 31 of that year, Walmart grew total revenue in constant currency 6% to $648 billion and its adjusted earnings per share 5.7% higher to $6.65. In the 52 weeks following that earnings announcement, Walmart shares climbed 66%.

Costco, on the other hand, makes a large percentage of its profits from membership income — membership fees totaled about 65% of net income in the most recently reported quarter. That business model — along with a reputation for good deals — helps steady the company’s results during an inflation spike. In its fiscal 2023 (ended Sept. 3 of that year), Costco saw U.S. net sales grow 6.7% to almost $238 billion. Membership fees increased 8% that year, to $4.58 billion.

In the 52 weeks after that earnings release, Costco stock rose 63%.

And just recently, in its third quarter of 2025, the retailer reported a 10.4% increase in its membership fee income, to more than $1.2 billion. Last September Costco raised membership fees by $5, to $65 a year, yet it saw no meaningful decline in members after the increase.

Both businesses and their stocks benefit from rising overall prices because they’re able to either keep prices lower than the competition (Walmart), which drives sales, or rely on membership fees (Costco) that drive profits.

What does the future hold?

So which stock should you invest in today in anticipation of rising grocery prices in the months ahead?

Well, stock prices ultimately track earnings growth. And analysts expect Costco to increase earnings per share for the current quarter by 10% (results will be released on Sept. 25).

As for Walmart, the retail behemoth released its second-quarter results this week and they were slightly disappointing. Adjusted earnings per share of $0.68 were lower than the average analyst estimate of $0.73, and that sent the stock 5% lower on Thursday. Revenue, however, came in at $177.4 billion, almost $2 billion higher than estimates.

Thus, the picture is mixed. Rising grocery prices will impact all U.S. retailers, and both Costco and Walmart have a history of thriving when that happens. With the uncertainty of Trump’s tariff policies still high, however, Costco’s membership-driven model may put it in a more advantageous position going forward.

Matthew Benjamin does not hold any of the stocks mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Costco Wholesale, Target, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Kroger. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Oscar-winner Ariana DeBose is mourning the loss of her mother, Gina Michelle DeBose, who has died at age 57 after battling Stage 3 ovarian cancer.

The “West Side Story” actor and Broadway star announced her mother’s death Tuesday on Instagram, sharing photos of the two of them over the years — from the younger DeBose’s childhood to her historic win at the Academy Awards in 2022.

“I couldn’t be more proud of her and how she fought this insidious disease over the past 3 years,” DeBose wrote.

Ariana DeBose, 34, said in her tribute that her mother was her “favorite person, my biggest fan and toughest critic. My best friend.” The “Love Hurts” actor said her mother “fought like hell” to support her daughter’s ambitions, adding that her accolades — which include BAFTA, Critics’ Choice and Golden Globe awards — belong equally to her mother.

The actor said her mother was a longtime public school teacher who devoted her life to educating young people. She was “the greatest advocate” for arts education, she said, adding that the death of the elder DeBose would deeply impact her mother’s community: “She was a force of epic proportion.”

Actors including “Abbott Elementary” star Quinta Brunson, “Insecure” alumna Yvonne Orji, former “Dancing With the Stars” pro Julianne Hough and celebrity fitness trainer Amanda Kloots rallied around DeBose in the comments section as she broke the news. In addition to paying tribute to her mother, DeBose highlighted several charities where supporters could donate in her mother’s honor.

“My greatest and most proud achievement will always be to have made her proud,” DeBose wrote. “I love you mommy. Now travel amongst the seas, the winds and the angels as I know you always loved to do.”

Cameron Mofid has visited every UN-recognised country and territory on Earth, but two destinations in particular stand out as his top favourites

An audacious explorer who has set foot in every country on Earth before his 26th birthday has shared two surprising favourites from his travels. Cameron Mofid, hailing from San Diego, California, embarked on a daring mission to visit all UN-recognised countries and territories across the globe – a staggering 195 in total – while grappling with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) during the pandemic.

The resolute traveller achieved his remarkable feat in April when he and his travel mates arrived in the enigmatic nation of North Korea, which recently completed the construction of a sprawling new coastal resort.

With nearly 200 countries under his belt, picking out the best might seem a daunting task. Yet, two nations particularly stole Cameron’s affection, despite both being subject to severe travel warnings by the Foreign Office (FCDO). It comes after a warning to Brit tourists planning all-inclusive holidays to Spain.

READ MORE: American tourist slams pretty European town that was nothing like pictures suggestedREAD MORE: ‘I stayed up until 2am to see iconic attraction but it was still horribly busy’

Algeria stood out as his initial top pick, which he described as “unbelievable”. In an interview with CNN, he disclosed: “It’s one of my favourite countries in the whole world. The countries that receive the least amount of tourism are often the ones where you have the best experience, because you feel totally immersed in their culture.”

Cameron also expressed his fondness for Yemen, having ventured through the Middle Eastern country in February 2023. He remarked on the sensation of stepping back in time while meandering its streets, reports the Express.

He elaborated: “To see people dress the same way that they were hundreds if not thousands of years ago. To see people living in mud houses, to see people still using flip phones.”

Algeria, positioned in northern Africa, is largely dominated by the Sahara Desert apart from its northern coastline where most of its population lives. It stands as Africa’s biggest nation.

The nation possesses a diverse historical heritage, having been governed by numerous Arab and Berber ruling families from the 8th to 15th centuries before establishing ties with the Ottoman Empire and later being incorporated into France in 1848.

Regarding travel to Algeria, the FCDO has designated most of the country in green on its platform, suggesting visitors should “see our travel advice before travelling”. Nevertheless, the frontier areas are highlighted with amber and red alerts.

In particular, the FCDO advises against all journeys within a 30km zone of Algeria’s frontiers with Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and certain parts of Tunisia. Additionally, it suggests avoiding all non-essential travel within 30km of the remaining Tunisian frontier.

Meanwhile, Yemen, a comparatively young state positioned at the southern edge of the Arabian Peninsula in Western Asia, borders the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, situated below Saudi Arabia.

From 2011 onwards, Yemen has been consumed by political turmoil and is presently enduring a catastrophic civil conflict that has resulted in more than 150,000 deaths and triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, with 23 million individuals requiring aid.

The Foreign Office has issued a stark warning regarding travel to Yemen, urging against all trips to the nation and pressing those currently there to leave “immediately” in light of the precarious security conditions.

Their report cautions that terrorist attacks are highly likely in Yemen, with a “very high and constant threat” of kidnapping. It underscores that propaganda from Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has explicitly encouraged the kidnapping of Westerners.

There are certain seats on a plane that could become a nightmare on a long haul flight according to a travel expert – who shared her top tips when it comes to plane seat selection

When going on a long haul flight – experts urge people to never select these certain seats if they want a smooth journey. Flying long haul can already be hard, and it can be made even worse if you choose the wrong seat.

A travel expert has shared some of her top tips when it comes to where to sit on a plan for comfort, sleep quality and less disruptions on a long flight as poor sleep selection can make jet lag worse and leave people exhausted before their holiday has even started.

While people may think the window seat on the end row is the ideal spot for some peace and quiet, tucked away at the back – Dawn Morwood, Co-Director of Cheap Deals Away said “it’s actually a recipe for a miserable flight”.

READ MORE: Spanish islands fear Brits won’t return as tourists are dealt another blow

That back corner window seat might seem like the prime spot when you’re scrolling through the seat map, but it’s actually where comfort goes to die, the expert revealed. Located next to the toilets and galley, it will cause sleep disrupting problems,

“The biggest issue is the constant foot traffic,” Dawn said. “You’ve got passengers queuing for the loo right beside you, flight attendants rushing back and forth with trolleys, and people stretching their legs in the aisle. It never stops.” These seats also don’t recline because there’s a wall directly behind them. On a 10-hour flight to Asia or an 8-hour journey to the States, that upright position becomes torture for your back and makes proper sleep nearly impossible.

Dawn’s expert tips for choosing the perfect long-haul seat

Pick your sweet spot wisely

The best seats are typically in the middle section of the aircraft, she advised, away from both the busy front galley and the chaotic rear area. “Look for seats around rows 6-15 on most wide-body aircraft,” advised Dawn. “You’re far enough from the action but still have easy access to facilities when needed.”

Avoid the bathroom zone

Never book within three rows of any lavatory. The queues, smells and constant activity will make your journey miserable. Check the aircraft’s seat map carefully before selecting.

Choose your side strategically

“If you’re flying eastbound for a daytime arrival, pick a seat on the right side of the plane to avoid the sun streaming through your window during the final hours,” Dawn suggested. “For westbound flights, sit on the left side.”

Consider the exit rows carefully

While exit row seats offer extra legroom, they come with restrictions. You can’t store anything under the seat in front during takeoff and landing, and these seats often don’t recline.

Book early for best selection

“The golden rule is simple – book as early as possible,” says Dawn. “Airlines release their best seats to early bookers, and you’ll have the widest choice of positions.”

The expert said that while the back corner window seat might look appealing on the booking page, “you’ll regret it the moment you try to get comfortable,” and added: “Poor seat selection not only impacts your flight, but your entire trip. If you can’t sleep properly on the plane, you’ll arrive with worse jet lag, feeling cranky and tired. Your first few days of holiday are essentially written off while you recover.”

Do you have a story to share? Email [email protected]

Former Vice President Kamala hasn’t decided whether she will run for California governor next year, but a new poll released Wednesday shows that she would be a favorite of voters if she does.

Though many voters were undecided, Harris was the choice of 41% of survey respondents, compared to 29% who opted for an unnamed Republican candidate, according to a poll by the University of California Irvine. She also had the greatest favorability ratings and is most well known compared to all of the candidates who have announced.

“The path to governor seems well-paved for Vice President Harris if she decides to run,” said Jon Gould, dean of UCI’s School of Social Ecology, in a statement. “Although she lacks majority support at the moment, people know her better than the other candidates and generally view her favorably.”

Only 5% of Californians had never heard of Harris, while every other announced candidate was unknown by a far larger number of respondents, including those who had run for statewide office previously. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ran for governor in 2018, was unknown by 47% of survey respondents; 48% were unfamiliar with former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, who ran for U.S. Senate in 2024.

When tested against candidates who have announced, Harris was the choice of 24% of voters, the only candidate to crack double digits, according to the poll. However, 40% of respondents were undecided, according to the poll.

Among Democrats, who account for 47% of the state’s voters as of February, Harris had the support of nearly half, while every announced candidate had single-digit support. Harris led among Californians in every region and in every racial group, according to the poll.

Billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 2022 and is reportedly debating whether to run for mayor again or governor, was the favored choice of GOP voters, with the backing of 27% of survey respondents.

Harris, whose representatives did not respond to a request for comment, is expected to decide whether she enters the race by the end of the summer, a delay that has prompted criticism from several candidates in the crowded field of candidates who have already announced their bids.

The statewide poll of 4,143 Californians was conducted online in two separate polls, one between May 27 and June 2, and another between May 29 and June 4. The margin of error in either direction varies between 2.9% and 3.6%, according to UCI.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is the preeminent center for pediatric medicine in Southern California. For three decades, it’s also been one of the world’s leading destinations for trans care for minors. Don’t take my word for it: CHLA boasts about its record of providing “high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care for transgender and gender-diverse youth, young adults, and their families.”

Earlier this month, it abruptly ended all that, telling its staff in a meeting that the Center for Transyouth Health and Development would be shutting down. (My daughter was, until this announcement, a patient at the center.)

Did some new medical breakthrough, some unexpected research drive the decision to cut off care for roughly 2,500 patients with no warning? No. It came, the hospital said, after “a thorough legal and financial assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies.”

In other words, the hospital caved. In advance.

CHLA made the move a week before the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in the United States vs. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law that bans most gender-affirming care for minors. More than 20 states have passed similar laws that prevent trans minors from accessing many different forms of medical care. The decision essentially shields those laws from future legal challenges.

But the Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with CHLA’s decision. There is no such law in California.

Why, then, without any court order or law, did the center suddenly close, leaving so many young patients in need of doctors, medications and procedures? You can probably guess the answer.

Pressure from the Trump administration threatened the hospital with severe repercussions if it continued to serve these patients. One form of pressure arrived in a May 28 letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, signed by its administrator, the former TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz. He announced that his agency would seek financial records on a range of gender-affirming care procedures from several dozen hospitals.

Being faced with the choice of discontinuing care for an entire class of patients or battling the administration over access to financial records is not a dilemma any doctor wants to face. To be clear, this is not a debate over medical science or proper care for trans youth. CHLA followed the science — until it didn’t. This is a debate over ideology about who is deserving of medical care.

In the past few months, we have seen powerful law firms, large corporations and universities forced to contend with difficult bargains. Settle with an administration that has singled you out? Or take the battle to court?

In February, when Children’s Hospital announced that it would stop taking on new patients in its Transyouth Center, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sternly reminded them that they had a legal obligation to continue to provide this care. The hospital quickly reversed course.

That’s why the recent choice of the CHLA board marks a huge shift that could potentially affect care for not just trans youth patients but so many others as well.

Because what the board of CHLA did was, in fact, a choice. Moreover, CHLA’s choice went against its own medical advice about the urgent need for such care. On its website, the hospital claims it was “immensely proud of this legacy of caring for young people on the path to achieving their authentic selves.”

When confronted with threats, the board chose to sacrifice the care of one group of patients in the hope that it could continue to care for others. Perhaps the board concluded that it was following a crude, utilitarian logic: denying the medical needs of some would allow it to provide for many more.

That’s not how I see it. In caving to blackmail, they have endorsed the administration’s bigotry. They have demonstrated that trans youth are expendable. The board has made it clear that this group of patients is not as deserving of care as others. When CHLA faced actual pressure, its own record of providing “high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care” simply became too inconvenient.

This time, it was trans youth. Who will it be next time? Disabled children? Children born outside the U.S.? CHLA agreed to play the game rather than call it out for what it is.

As a journalist, I occasionally grant anonymity to a source. It’s not an action I take lightly. The decision means that if pressured, even when threatened with contempt of court, I will not reveal their identity. Thankfully, it’s never come to that for me, although other journalists have gone to jail to protect sources. If I were to break that pledge once, I could never in good conscience grant it again.

I now wonder how doctors at CHLA can ever look their young patients in the eye again and promise that, no matter what, they will fight for their care.

Gabriel Kahn is a professor of professional practice at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

The series: “Ginny & Georgia.”

The setting: A women’s healthcare clinic.

The scene: Ginny, 16, is carrying an unwanted pregnancy. She’s seeking an abortion. During a preconsultation, a clinic provider asks if she needs more time to decide. No, says the teen, she’s sure.

There’s no proverbial wringing of hands around the character’s decision. No apologizing for her choice. Why? Because it’s not for us to judge. It’s a personal matter, despite all the politicization around reproductive rights that might have us believe otherwise.

Opinions, debates and legislative fights around abortion have raged since Roe vs. Wade was adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 1973, then overturned in 2022. It’s no secret why such a lightning-rod issue is rarely touched by series television. Alienating half the country is bad for ratings. Exceptions include breakthrough moments on shows such as “Maude,” “The Facts of Life” and “Jane the Virgin,” but even those episodes were careful to weigh the sensitivity of the political climate over a transparent depiction of their character’s motivations and experience.

Another pitfall is that subplots featuring abortion storylines are hard to pull off without feeling like a break from scheduled programming for an antiabortion or pro-abortion-rights PSA, or worse, a pointless exercise in bothsidesism.

Season 3 of Netflix dramedy “Ginny & Georgia” dares to go there, unapologetically making the political personal inside a fun, wily and addictive family saga. The series, the streamer’s No. 1 show since it returned two weeks ago, skillfully delivers an intimate narrative that defies judgment and the fear of being judged.

The hourlong series, which launched in 2021, follows single mom Georgia Miller (Brianne Howey), her angsty teenage daughter Ginny (Antonia Gentry) and her young son Austin (Diesel La Torraca). This formerly nomadic trio struggles to forge a “normal” life in the fictional Boston suburb of Wellsbury.

Flamboyant, fast-talking Southerner Georgia stands out among the fussy, provincial New England set. Born in Alabama to drug-addicted parents, she fled her abusive upbringing as a teenager. Homeless, she met Zion (played as an adult by Nathan Mitchell), a college-bound student from a good family. Soon into their relationship, she fell pregnant, giving birth to their daughter Ginny, kicking off a life on the run and in service of protecting her children.

Now in her 30s, the blond bombshell has relied on her beauty, innate smarts and countless grifts to endure poverty and keep her family intact. The hardscrabble lifestyle has made Ginny wise beyond her years, though she’s not immune to mercurial teen mood swings and the sophomoric drama of high school.

But history appears to repeat itself when Ginny becomes pregnant after having sex just once with a fellow student from her extracurricular poetry class. Overwhelmed, he’s the first person she tells about their dilemma. “That’s wild,” he responds idiotically, before abruptly taking off, leaving her to deal with the pregnancy on her own.

Episode 7 largely revolves around Ginny’s decision to have an abortion, a thoughtfully paced subplot that breaks from the perpetual chaos and deadly secrets permeating the Millers’ universe.

Ginny is painfully aware that she is the product of an unwanted pregnancy and her mother’s choice not to have an abortion. Georgia has repeatedly said her kids are the best thing that ever happened to her. But when counseling her distraught daughter, Georgia says the choice is Ginny’s to make, and no one else’s.

Here’s where “Ginny & Georgia” might have launched into a didactic, pro-abortion-rights lecture cloaked in a TV drama, or played it safe by pulling back and highlighting both women’s stories in equal measure.

Instead it chose to bring viewers in close, following Ginny’s singular experience from her initial shame and panic, to moving conversations with her mom, to that frank counseling session at the women’s health center where she made it quite clear she was not ready to be a mother. We watched her take the medication, then experience what followed: painful cramping, pangs of guilt, waves of relief and the realization she now bore a new, lifelong emotional scar that wasn’t caused by her mother.

By sticking to Ginny’s intimate story, through her perspective, the series delivers a story that is hers and hers alone, partisan opinions be damned.

“Ginny & Georgia” has offered up many surprises over its three seasons. Georgia has emerged one of the more entertaining, cunning and inventive antiheroes of the 2020s. As such, she attracts men in droves, schemes a la Walter White and doesn’t believe in therapy: “We don’t do that in the South. We shoot things and eat butter.”

But therapy might be a good idea given Season 3’s cliffhanger ending: another accidental pregnancy.

Before anything, Clayton Kershaw has to believe. Before he can snap off curveballs the way he used to, before he can be a dependable member of the rotation instead of last resort, he has to believe.

Clayton Kershaw believes.

Never mind the mounting evidence to the contrary — the 5.17 earned-run average through his four starts this season, the two starts that weren’t interrupted by rain in which he failed to complete five innings, the unremarkable high-80s-to-low-90s fastball, the career-low strikeout rate.

Kershaw believes he can once again be a contributor on a championship team.

“I just need to put it together for a whole game,” Kershaw said, “which I think I can do and will do.”

Who’s to say otherwise?

He’s looked finished before, and he wasn’t. Even with diminished stuff, he’s found ways to get hitters out, so why should this time be any different?

“I’m gonna bet on him,” manager Dave Roberts said.

For now, at least, Roberts doesn’t have a choice. Tyler Glasnow and Blake Snell remain sidelined. So is Roki Sasaki.

The next man up would be Bobby Miller, who lasted only three innings in his only major league start this season.

In reality, Kershaw also doesn’t have a choice other than to believe. What’s the alternative?

In the wake of a 10-inning, 6-5 victory over the New York Mets on Tuesday night in which he pitched just 4 ⅔ innings, Kershaw’s rhetoric and demeanor were remarkably upbeat. He pointed to his recovery from the knee and foot surgeries he underwent over the winter, as well as his shoulder operation from the previous offseason.

“I mean, physically, I feel great,” he said. “I don’t feel old. My arm feels good. There’s not really any excuses. It’s just pitch better, pitch like you’re capable of. I think the stuff’s there. The stuff’s there to get people out.”

Kershaw was charged with five runs, three of them earned. He gave up six hits and three walks.

“It’s kind of in and out for me,” he said. “I think I’ll go on a stretch of making, like, 10 or 11 good pitches in a row and then just make enough bad ones to get some damage done against me.”

In Roberts’ view, his trademark slider lacked “teethiness.” More problematic was his curveball, which was particularly erratic.

“Can’t just be a two-pitch guy out there, so definitely need to throw my curveball better, for sure,” Kershaw said.

The absence of the curveball prevented Kershaw from putting away batters. He had 14 batters into two-strike counts but managed only two strikeouts while giving up four hits and a walk.

“I know he’s frustrated because he’s getting count leverage with guys and can’t put them away by way of strikeout,” Roberts said. “He’s competing his tail off, but it just hasn’t been as easy as it has been for him prior to this little stretch.”

In Kershaw’s defense, he was let down by, well, his defense.

In the Mets’ two-run five inning, Max Muncy allowed a potential inning-ending double play grounder to skip through his legs. Later, Brandon Nimmo reached base on a train wreck of a defensive play by the Dodgers, allowing the Mets to score and take a 5-4 lead.

Kershaw is 37 now, with more than 3,000 innings pitched in professional baseball. He won’t win another Cy Young Award, and he knows that. The Dodgers know that too, and that’s not what they’re asking of him. What they’re counting on him to do is to take the mound every six or seven days and keep them in games, perhaps take down six or seven innings on occasion to relieve their overworked bullpen.

“I think he’s going to approach each start to give us a chance to win,” Roberts said. “And I don’t know what that looks like each start, but I think that that’s a starting point, and then from that point, as a game goes on, then I’m gonna have to make decisions on what we have behind him.”

Kershaw made an All-Star team just two years ago and started one the year before that. His stuff was almost as diminished then as it is now. He should be able to pitch like that again, and he’s taken a small but critical first step toward doing that. He believes he can.

In April, Nandy said the 68-year-old sports media rights executive was the “outstanding candidate” to fill the position, despite not being on the original three-person shortlist.

She has now removed herself from the final decision, delegating responsibility to the Sports Minister.

Last month, Kogan told MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMS) during a pre-appointment hearing that he was being “utterly transparent” by declaring his donations.

The committee endorsed Kogan, but said he must work to “reassure the football community that he will act impartially and in a politically neutral way”. Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage warned that Kogan’s “past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount”.

Kogan said he had donated “very small sums” to the campaigns, as well as thousands of pounds to Labour MPs and candidates in recent years, but had “total personal independence from all of them” and pledged “total political impartiality” if appointed.

A DCMS spokesperson said: “We have received the letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments and we look forward to co-operating fully with his office.

“The appointment is in the process of being ratified in the usual way.”

Kogan declined to comment.

It has also emerged that Nandy has written to the CMS Committee and told them: “I heard clearly the Committee’s comments regarding David’s transparency and candour regarding previous political donations that he had made and the need for him to take concrete steps to avoid the perception of any bias or lack of independence from government.

“As a first step to avoid any risk of this, I am writing to inform you that I have delegated the final decision on the chair’s appointment to the Minister for Sport.”

Conservative shadow sports minister Louie French has previously said the failure to disclose the donations when first put forward for the role was “a clear breach of the governance code on public appointments”.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister added Kogan had been appointed through a “fair and open competition”, and the BBC has been told his donations were below the threshold that requires declaring.

The Football Governance Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament after being reintroduced by the Labour government in October, will establish a first independent regulator for the professional men’s game in England.

The legislation will hand power to a body independent from government and football authorities to oversee clubs in England’s top five divisions.

Kogan – a former BBC journalist who also previously advised the Premier League, EFL and other leagues on broadcast rights – said he wants to put “fans at the heart of the regulator” and help the football pyramid.

As crypto prices rally in the bull market, investors who identify high-potential tokens early will disproportionately benefit. Seasoned investors don’t use the “spray and pray” approach, buying random tokens and hoping they explode once the bull market hits; instead, they take calculated sniper-like bets on tokens with the best risk-to-reward ratios.

Strong fundamentals, supportive communities, and a low market cap are the holy grail trifecta for investors seeking to outperform the market. That’s why MIND of Pepe ($MIND) could be the best crypto to buy now. This project features an innovative and value-driven use case that could change the way users interact with market data. It also boasts steadfast community support, and the token is currently available for purchase through its token presale, indicating it has serious untapped potential.

For investors hoping to maximize their bull market profits, $MIND is certainly one to watch.

$MIND presale provides 25,656% potential and real-time market intelligence

At its core, MIND of Pepe is an AI agent that monitors on-chain and social media data to identify trading opportunities for its community. It utilizes Pepe branding to appeal to a wide audience and attract new investors. But it’s the AI agent that gives the project real staying power.

It’s building a data insight terminal, which will provide trading signals, deep technical analysis, risk-to-reward ratio analysis, and curated X posts.

The project aims to give its users an informational edge in the market, leading them to make better trading decisions and boost their profitability.

MIND of Pepe isn’t just an investment; it’s a key that could unlock life-changing opportunities  in the bull market.

This use case is attracting serious attention, with over $10 million raised in its presale. And that signals investors deep-seated conviction, which could contribute to a 25,656% rally toward $1 this cycle.

Last cycle, the $1 price tag was a far-flung dream for meme coins, with Dogecoin falling short after peaking at $0.73 and Shiba Inu coming nowhere close.

But there have been plenty of meme coins to generate substantial gains and hit $1 this cycle. These include Dogwifhat, SPX6900, Fartcoin, and OFFICIAL TRUMP. So considering MIND of Pepe’s promising AI utility, there’s every chance that it is the next $1 meme coin.

With a powerful use case, strong presale momentum, and current early stage, MIND of Pepe ticks all the boxes of a project that could do well in the coming months. However, the presale is set to end in three days, so potential investors should act fast to secure the current fixed price.

Bitcoin’s as a safe-haven asset

Bitcoin is the gold standard when it comes to crypto investments.

There was once a time when cipher punks and anti-establishment figures were the core Bitcoin user base. Today, the Bitcoin community looks quite different.

The top Bitcoin holders are the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, and technology firm MicroStrategy. The reason for this is that Bitcoin is increasingly earning a reputation on the global stage as a safe-haven asset, with sophisticated investors and world leaders beginning to lose faith in the current world reserve currency, the US Dollar.

And even the US is buying Bitcoin. They unveiled a Bitcoin strategic reserve in March, and the nation’s crypto czar, David Sacks, recently stated that the US could potentially “acquire more Bitcoin.”

Bitcoin is experiencing mass adoption on a scale that not many people thought was possible. So for investors who like to play it safe, Bitcoin will make up the lion’s share of their portfolios.

Hyperliquid to capitalize on investors’ bull market risk appetite

Hyperliquid, on the other hand, is a platform that unlocks a new risk market for crypto users.

It’s a layer 1 blockchain that focuses on perpetual futures trading. What makes Hyperliquid stand out is its deep liquidity, wide selection of tradable tokens, and intuitive user interface.

Previously, such characteristics were only available on centralized futures trading platforms, but these are not available to all crypto users. Many countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, place large restrictions on crypto futures trading for retail investors.

Moreover, Hyperliquid also allows you to retain the benefits of decentralisation, such as self-custody and privacy.

For these reasons, $HYPE is attracting serious attention right now. Its price has soared by 93% this month to create a new all-time high (ATH), signalling strong market interest.

As the bull market continues, investors will take more risk and this will draw more people to the Hyperliquid platform. This setup could make $HYPE a lucrative long-term play.

Solana makes shockwaves with institutional interest

Solana made its name this cycle as the go-to ecosystem for meme coins, so it’s surprising that leaders in global finance are starting to move funds onto the network.

BlackRock brought its tokenized money market to the chain this year, as did Franklin Templeton. SOL Strategies is following Strategy’s playbook and using proceeds from equity and debt financings to buy $SOL.

And enterprise blockchain developer R3 has just made an agreement with the Solana Foundation for it and its customers, including HSBC and Bank of America, to use the Solana blockchain.

JUST IN: r3’s Corda — used by HSBC, SDX, and Euroclear to move $10B+ in tokenized assets — is integrating with Solana.

For the first time, institutions using Corda will be able to settle directly on a public blockchain.

More from The Block: https://t.co/IaNplOGS2c pic.twitter.com/Ap32NwP6jU

— Solana (@solana) May 22, 2025

Solana is not just a force in the meme coin space; it’s entrenching itself at the highest levels of global finance.

Its institutional interest could signal something big is coming, such as Solana being used as a banking and payments network. This is a positive sign for $SOL, and could lead to big gains.

The biggest returns happen early

Investing in Bitcoin in 2010 or Solana in 2019 would have yielded life-changing gains. But while these projects still look promising, their biggest returns have already passed.

This is where MIND of Pepe stands out. While boasting strong adoption and a powerful use case, the project’s current early stage gives it an edge. Bitcoin is worth over $2 trillion, while Hyperliquid is worth $12 billion and Solana $90 billion. Considering MIND of Pepe’s $10 million raise, it’s easy to see why this could offer the most upside potential.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.