considered

Decades since it’s release fans continue to hail this 90s sci-fi movie as both ‘groundbreaking’ and ‘breathtaking’ and they can watch it once again on ITV tonight

Film fans have dubbed this 1991 movie as the “best action movie of all time”, scoring it an impressive 91% on the review site Rotten Tomatoes – and it’s on ITV for free tonight.

The classic American science-fiction movie is set to appear on TV tonight,for the perfect slice of nostalgia as you gear up for the Halloween weekend. Terminator 2: Judgement Day is the second instalment in the famed Terminator series, with Arnold Schwarzenegger playing the leading role, in what viewers are calling the best sequel to exist.

In the film, directed by James Cameron, the malevolent artificial intelligence network, known as Skynet, sends a highly advanced killing machine, The Terminator, back in time. It finds itself in 1995, on a mission to kill the future leader of the human resistance while he is still a child in order to protect the future of humanity.

One fan of the film wrote on Rotten Tomatoes: “This is one of those stellar classic action movies, and it was the best action movie of the 1990s. It was significantly ahead of its time! Groundbreaking special effects, a relentless and threateningly powerful villain, humorous and awesome moments, and entertaining action set pieces and sequences that looked convincingly real!”

Another viewer simply says: “In my opinion, this is the greatest action movie of all time. And the greatest movie sequel of all time.” Meanwhile, someone else wrote: “My favourite movie of all time, no notes.”

The film went on to be an instant classic, as a box office boom and critical success, grossing $519–520.9 million. It went on to become the highest-grossing film of 1991 across the globe and the third-highest-grossing film of its time.

Decades later, Terminator 2 is still considered to be one of the best science fiction films ever made, as a trailblazer for visual effects and computer-generated imagery. Not to mention, it has an all-star cast made up of Edward Furlong, Linda Hamilton, Robert Patrick and Dean Norris.

A viewer praised the cast’s performances in the sequel, writing: “Judgment Day elevates the franchise with groundbreaking visual effects and breathtaking action. Arnold delivers one of his most iconic performances, while Linda Hamilton’s transformation into a fierce and determined Sarah Connor is unforgettable.”

If viewers’ raving reviews aren’t a convincing enough reason to kick back tonight and have a movie night in, the film’s numerous accolades may prove it worthy. Terminator 2 went on to receive an impressive six Academy Awards, as well as a BAFTA Award and four Saturn Awards, honouring its visual effects, hair and makeup and, of course, the best sound effects.

A review says: “Best Terminator movie, period. This is the one that all others are judged on, and it’s a high bar.” If you’re looking for something to watch tonight, flick over to ITV4 tonight at 9pm to see an all-time classic movie from the comfort of your sofa.

NEW YORK — A few weeks before his stunning loss to Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic mayoral primary, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo put forth a political calculus long accepted as fact in New York: “Being a Democrat,” he said, “it’s synonymous that you support Israel.”

Mamdani, who would be the city’s first Muslim mayor, could be on the cusp of shattering that convention.

An unstinting supporter of Palestinian rights, the 34-year-old democratic socialist has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, backed the movement to boycott the country’s goods and pledged to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he sets foot in New York.

In a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, where mayors have long been expected to make the long pilgrimage to the Jewish state, Mamdani identifies proudly as an “anti-Zionist.”

While he says he supports Israel’s right to exist, he describes any state or social hierarchy that favors Jews over others as incompatible with his belief in universal human rights.

City officials, Mamdani often points out, have no say in American foreign policy. And he has consistently and emphatically rejected claims that his criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism, promising to work closely with those whom he doesn’t agree with if elected.

But as Cuomo and others have framed the race as a referendum on Israel, political observers say a Mamdani victory could reverberate far beyond New York, offering permission for Democrats to speak out on an issue long seen as a third rail of politics.

“This race is a proxy for where the party goes from here in terms of support for Israel — and that’s causing a lot of consternation,” said Basil Smikle, a former chief executive of the state’s Democratic Party. “We’re treading in territory that we’ve not really dealt with before.”

The ‘most important’ issue in the race

From the beginning, Cuomo has staked much of his political comeback on painting himself as a defender of Jewish security, both in New York and the Middle East.

Shortly before launching his campaign, he announced that he had joined Netanyahu’s legal defense team to defend the prime minister against war crimes charges brought by the International Criminal Court. He cast antisemitism as the “most important” issue facing the city and himself as a “hyper aggressive supporter of Israel.”

Mamdani’s own views, he said, presented an “existential” threat to New Yorkers.

Other candidates quickly rushed to burnish their own pro-Israel credentials, including Mayor Eric Adams, who announced he would run on an “EndAntisemitism” ballot line.

As they competed for support among Brooklyn’s prominent rabbis and other Jewish voters, each equated protests for Palestinian rights with support for terrorism and backed a contentious definition of antisemitism that includes certain criticism of Israel.

Days before dropping out last month, Adams shared a smiling photo with Netanyahu.

The strategy appeared willfully ignorant of polls showing growing public disapproval in the U.S. of Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza, according to Alyssa Cass, a longtime Democratic strategist.

She said a handful of deep-pocketed campaign donors and some city news outlets “created an impression that you could not ever question Israel, and that impression was completely divorced from reality.”

“The unique dynamics in New York were masking a broader, larger migration in public opinion that had been brewing for some time,” Cass added. “They didn’t realize that the ground beneath them had shifted.”

Shifting political winds

Still, with less than two weeks to go before the election, Cuomo has only leaned into the issue, claiming at Wednesday’s debate that Mamdani had “stoked the flames of hatred against the Jewish people.”

The broadsides have won support from the Anti-Defamation League and pro-Israel donors, like the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman. But there is little indication that the strategy is working among ordinary New Yorkers.

In a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in early October, 41% of likely voters in New York City said Mamdani’s views on Israel aligned closest with their own, compared to 26% for Cuomo.

A Fox News poll conducted in mid-October found that 50% of registered voters in New York said they identified more with the Palestinians in the Middle East conflict, compared to 44% who identified more with the Israelis.

Those numbers have alarmed some Jewish leaders, who have laid at least some of the blame at Mamdani’s feet. In an open letter circulated this week, 650 rabbis warned that his candidacy has contributed to “rising anti-Zionism and its political normalization.”

Amy Spitalnick, the chief executive of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, cautioned against drawing a direct link between Mamdani’s popularity and his pro-Palestinian stance.

She noted that most Jewish voters remain strong supporters of Israel, lamenting the fact that neither Mamdani nor Cuomo had articulated “the liberal nuanced perspective that most New York Jews hold.”

“Mamdani’s views on Israel matter, but it’s not the issue on which the majority of New Yorkers are voting,” she added. “If he wins, it’s because he ran a compelling campaign on making this city more affordable.”

Weaponization and authenticity

In debates and interviews, where Mamdani often faces a barrage of questions about his views on the Israel-Hamas war, he is quick to shift the focus to his platform, which includes freezing the rent for regulated apartments, making buses free and lowering the cost of child care.

“I have denounced Hamas again and again,” an exasperated Mamdani said during a debate last week. “It will never be enough for Andrew Cuomo.”

At Wednesday’s debate, Mamdani again spoke of his proposal to increase funding for hate crime prevention and his recent outreach to Jewish voters about their fears of antisemitism.

“They deserve a leader who takes it seriously, who roots it out of these five boroughs, not one who weaponizes it as a means by which to score political points on a debate stage,” he added.

But despite months of vitriolic backlash, Mamdani has stood firm on his core criticism of Israel. In his statement marking the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, he condemned both Hamas’ “horrific war crimes” and Israel’s occupation, apartheid and “genocidal war” in Gaza.

Whether or not those views are shared by the broader electorate, the consistency of the message has served as “proxy for authenticity” in the minds of voters, according to Peter Feld, a progressive political consultant.

And it has offered a sharp contrast with not only Cuomo, but other pro-Israel Democrats in New York, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Both have spent weeks rebuffing questions about whether they will endorse Mamdani, indicating they were still meeting and speaking with the Democratic nominee.

“The allies divided up Europe in fewer meetings,” scoffed Cass. “At this point, they’re ignoring the majoritarian view of their voters, and there’s no way around that.”

In recent weeks, Feld said he had spoken to several potential candidates weighing primary challenges to other pro-Israel Democratic incumbents.

“Mamdani changed how candidates and donors think about what is politically possible,” Feld said. “We’ve seen that siding with Palestine over Israel doesn’t make you radioactive. It shows voters that you’ll stick to your principles.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

It is tempting for a dividend investor to simply select the highest yielding stocks. The problem with that approach is that it exposes you to the risk of dividend cuts if the yield is too high for the company to support.

Which is why dividend lovers also need to consider dividend history as they look at a company. And, when you do that, you’ll find that companies like Pfizer (PFE -0.50%), which has a huge 7.2% yield, don’t match up to companies like Johnson & Johnson (JNJ 1.03%), Omega Healthcare (OHI -0.50%), and Merck (MRK -0.03%).

Here’s what you need to know about these three healthcare dividend stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

1. If you need the money to live, dividend reliability is key

Pfizer is actually a well-run company. Sure, it is facing hard times right now, but it has dealt with difficult periods before and survived. It is highly likely that it will do so again, noting that some of the issues it is dealing with are a natural part of the pharmaceutical industry. For example, patent expirations are on the horizon, and it needs to find new drugs to replace older ones. Investors rightly worry about such patent cliffs, but they aren’t the least bit unusual for drug makers.

That said, Pfizer’s huge 7.2% dividend yield is also a reflection of the downbeat view among regulators and consumers around vaccines. So there’s more to watch here than the normal industry swings. But the same things could, largely, be said of Merck, one of Pfizer’s competitors. The drugs and vaccines in question are different, but the worries are basically the same. You could easily buy either one if you wanted exposure to the pharma sector. Why pick Merck and its less impressive, though still high, 4% yield?

The answer is simple. Merck has a long history of supporting its dividend even through difficult periods. Pfizer cut its dividend in 2009 when it bought Wyeth. The acquisition was good for Pfizer, but the dividend cut was terrible for income investors. If dividend consistency matters to you, Merck wins here.

Data by YCharts.

2. Omega Healthcare has survived the hardest of times

If Merck’s dividend resilience over time impresses you, you’ll probably find Omega Healthcare even more exciting. The company owns senior housing facilities, which were hard hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. To put it simply, older people in group settings were at severe risk of dying from the pandemic. That had the exact negative impact you would expect on nursing homes and similar properties. And yet Omega Healthcare, a senior housing-focused real estate investment trust (REIT), didn’t cut its dividend like many of its competitors.

It didn’t raise the dividend, either, but it did stand behind the payment, realizing that investors were relying on that quarterly check. That should make Omega’s nearly 6.4% yield look a lot more attractive, even for more conservative dividend investors.

Data by YCharts.

And don’t forget that the pandemic is now mostly in the rearview mirror. The second quarter of 2025 saw Omega invest in new assets, which should help spur growth and post an 8% year-over-year increase in adjusted funds from operations (FFO). With the business looking like it is on the mend, the dividend is likely more secure now than it has been in years.

3. The Dividend King approach

If you are looking to stick to only the most reliable of dividend companies, however, then you’ll want to buy a Dividend King. These are stocks that have raised their dividends for over 50 years. Johnson & Johnson’s string of over 60 annual dividend increases makes it the healthcare stock to beat when it comes to dividend reliability. Of course, investors know how reliable this drug and medical device maker is, so the stock is usually afforded a premium valuation. Right now, the yield is around 3% or so, the lowest on this list. However, it is still higher than the 1.7% yield of the average healthcare stock, making J&J a good pick for investors who place a high value on dividend consistency.

Clearly, Johnson & Johnson has its own warts to consider. For example, it faces all of the same issues in the pharma space as Merck and Pfizer. It is also dealing with a lingering class action lawsuit around talcum powder that it once sold. So even this Dividend King isn’t risk-free. But if history is any guide, you can count on the dividend continuing to be paid through thick and thin.

Don’t just jump at the highest yield

Although there’s nothing particularly wrong with Pfizer, a comparison to Merck, Omega, and J&J shows that a high yield isn’t the only factor you should consider if you are looking for a good dividend stock. If reliable dividend stocks are what you want populating your dividend portfolio, you will clearly want to look past Pfizer’s yield. And when you do that, you’ll likely find that Merck, Omega, and Johnson & Johnson all offer a more compelling combination of income reliability and yield.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Children younger than 16 in England will no longer be able to legally buy high-caffeine energy drinks under a proposal announced by the British government Tuesday.

The proposed ban would apply to drinks sold in shops, restaurants, cafes and vending machines, according to an announcement from the Labour-led government. If enacted, England would join other European countries with restrictions on the drinks that have been blamed for childhood obesity, poor sleep and behavioral issues in classrooms.

“How can we expect children to do well at school if they have the equivalent of four cans of cola in their system on a daily basis?” Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said in a statement. “Energy drinks might seem harmless, but the sleep, concentration and wellbeing of today’s kids are all being impacted, while high sugar versions damage their teeth and contribute to obesity.”

While most supermarkets voluntarily stopped selling energy drinks to children under 16, they can still easily be obtained in smaller shops and up to a third of British children consume them weekly, reported the Mirror.

The ban would not apply to drinks containing less than 150 milligrams of caffeine per liter, leaving out lower-caffeine soft drinks, as well as coffee and tea. That means that cans of Red Bull, Monster and Prime Energy would be banned, the paper reported.

Countries including Lithuania, Latvia, Turkey and Sweden already have similar restrictions in place. State lawmakers in the United States have sought to ban the drinks.

Previously, the Conservative-led government considered a ban but did not follow through on it. Last year, a review of previous research on how the drinks affect young people published in the journal Public Health linked them to anxiety, stress and even suicidality.

“High-caffeine energy drinks have no place in children’s hands,” Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said in a statement. She called the ban “a common-sense, evidence-based step to protect children’s physical, mental, and dental health.”

The ban also had broad support for pediatricians, the national teachers union and public health campaigners.

However, Gavin Partington from the British Soft Drinks Association told the BBC that self-regulation was working.

“As with all government policy, it’s essential that any forthcoming regulation is based on a rigorous assessment of the evidence that’s available,” he said.

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also considering similar bans, according to the BBC.

NPR’s “All Things Considered” is getting a new weekday voice.

Scott Detrow will become a full-time weekday host of NPR’s afternoon radio show starting Sept. 29, while maintaining his role at “Consider This,” the outlet’s daily news podcast, the public radio firm said.

“I can’t wait to bring listeners the news five days a week now. And at this moment where we are all focusing on strengthening the entire public media network and working together more closely than ever before,” Detrow said in a statement.

This news comes a week after journalist Ari Shapiro announced his departure from the news magazine show. Shapiro had been hosting the show for nearly a decade.

For the last two years, Detrow could be heard on weekend episodes of “All Things Considered.” He steered coverage of breaking news events, including the attempted assassination of President Trump in Pennsylvania, earning him the Edward R. Murrow Award for breaking news.

He initially joined NPR in 2015. From getting his start as a Fordham student at WFUV in New York to working as a statehouse reporter at WITF in Pennsylvania and at KQED in the Bay Area, he has spent his entire career in public radio.

Since becoming a part of the national nonprofit, he has helped launch segments such as “Reporter’s Notebook,” in which listeners get a behind-the-scenes look at how journalism is produced, and most recently, he anchored live coverage surrounding Pope Leo’s election. He has also co-hosted the “NPR Politics Podcast” for seven years, focusing on the White House, Congress and two presidential campaigns.

“All Things Considered” is one of NPR’s longest-running shows, first airing in 1971. The flagship program presents a mix of news, commentary, interviews and analysis on a daily basis.

In a full-circle moment, Detrow’s first job out of college was working on the local version of “All Things Considered” in central Pennsylvania.

“I’m proud that I started out as an ATC host at a NPR Member station, and now will be doing that job nationally,” he said.