Tools

Jordan Henderson explains why Liverpool players weren't entirely happy with Arsenal win

The Reds kept up their 100 per cent record this season but the Reds skipper identified a flaw in their performance
Load more
Read full article on: mirror.co.uk
Peace Matters and So Does the United States | Opinion
The Abraham Accords are a great geopolitical achievement for the United States.
7 m
newsweek.com
The 4-Degrees-Celsius Election
The federal government spends roughly $700 billion a year on the military. It spends perhaps $15 billion a year trying to understand and stop climate change.I thought about those numbers a lot last week, as I tried to stop my toddler from playing in ash, tried to calm down my dogs as they paced and panted in mid-morning dusk light, tried to figure out whether my air purifier was actually protecting my lungs, tried to understand why the sky was pumpkin-colored, and tried not to think about the carcinogen risk of breathing in wildfire smoke, week after week.The government has committed to defending us and our allies against foreign enemies. Yet when it comes to the single biggest existential threat we collectively face—the one that threatens to make much of the planet inhabitable, starve millions, and incite violent conflicts around the world—it has chosen to do near-nothing. Worse than that, the federal government continues to subsidize and promote fossil fuels, and with them the destruction of our planetary home. Climate hell is here. We cannot stand it. And we cannot afford it either.[Read: This is your life on climate change]Again and again, Republicans have insisted that it is clean energy and a safer, stabler homeland that we cannot possibly afford. “The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production,” Donald Trump said, pulling out of the agreement, citing its “draconian financial and economic burdens.”But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels would cause something like $50 trillion in economic damage by the end of the century. The warmer the planet gets, the more expensive the consequences, and some scientists now predict that if the global community fails to act, temperatures will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. If we do not limit emissions, economic activity across 22 vital American business sectors could decline by half a trillion dollars on an annual basis, one study found. No country save for India is expected to bear a heavier financial burden from climate change than the United States. (India’s anticipated damage is so high because of its already hot climate and large GDP.)A warming planet is destroying the country’s physical infrastructure: In 2019 alone, the United States experienced more than a dozen billion-dollar weather events, and 2020 might be worse. Fires in California and Oregon are incinerating homes, businesses, schools, power lines, and roads. Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast are swamping mobile homes and carrying away cars and livestock. The United States faces the potential task of relocating towns and cities and fortifying others, trapped in an endless cycle of destruction and rebuilding.Climate change is damaging American productivity too, sapping away output from millions of workers and thousands of businesses. Researchers have estimated that every workday above 86 degrees Fahrenheit costs a given county $20 per person in lost income, with other studies showing workers who toil outside, such as construction workers and farmers, facing the worst and harshest effects. Temperature increases screw with the economy’s “basic elements, such as workers and crops,” the researchers Tatyana Deryugina and Solomon M. Hsiang argue.Climate change is killing Americans. Wildfires, heat waves, mudslides, hurricanes, and floods lead to hundreds if not thousands of deaths every year. But those are only the direct fatalities. Climate change is increasing rates of conditions such as heatstroke. Climate change is worsening birth outcomes, leading to more premature deliveries and maternal deaths. Climate change is putting the world at risk of famine, and the United States at risk of hunger.The air we are breathing is toxic because of our addiction to fossil fuels. As Dave Roberts writes at Vox, ditching gas would be worth it for the effects on air pollution alone. The researcher Drew Shindell of Duke University has testified that keeping the world to a 2-degrees-Celsius pathway would prevent 4.5 million premature deaths, 3.5 million hospitalizations and emergency-room visits, and 300 million lost workdays over the next 50 years.Climate change is also increasing rates of domestic abuse, pumping up the number of gun deaths, leading to more violent interactions with police officers, inciting resource conflicts, and raising the likelihood of war and civil conflicts. We all are at greater risk of violent death because of climate change, and not just as a result of changes in the weather. Trump sees himself as the law-and-order candidate, the man who can restore peace and security to the country. But homes across the West Coast are burning down. Some of my fellow Californians were recently immolated. My unhoused neighbors are suffering from smoke-induced asthma in the middle of a respiratory pandemic.[Leah Stokes: How can we plan for the future in California?]The Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal, cap-and-trade legislation, renewable-energy mandates: These things are not expensive. They are cheap compared with the cost of climate change. And they are necessary investments in our collective security, no less important or vital than investments in our military. Instead of subsidizing fossil fuels, the government could be creating millions of green jobs that would save the lives of millions around the planet. This election, and every election from here on out, is existential on this issue: If 2016, per the conservative writer Michael Anton, was the Flight 93 election, 2020 is the 4-degrees-Celsius election. Politicians can choose the safer, greener path for all of us, or the path to oblivion.What price would we put on breathing without fear? What price would we put on keeping our children safe? What price would we put on being freed of this terror?
7 m
theatlantic.com
NYS distributing $300 weekly jobless benefits to 2.26 million residents
The Cuomo administration finally distributed unemployment insurance benefits this week to 2.26 million New Yorkers — $1.9 billion in total — just weeks after the White House accused the state of dragging its feet on the matter. The state Labor Department said the jobless New Yorkers received retroactive federal Lost Wage Assistance benefits of $300...
7 m
nypost.com
5 things to know for September 18: coronavirus, election 2020, USPS, Taiwan
Here's what else you need to know to Get Up to Speed and On with Your Day.
edition.cnn.com
Wanted: People who want to get paid to taste cheeseburgers
For burger lovers out there, a dream job has opened up: getting paid to eat cheeseburgers.
edition.cnn.com
'Next Usain Bolt' Armand Duplantis breaks another world record
Armand Duplantis may only be 20 years old but he is already a track and field superstar.
edition.cnn.com
Scientists win award for giving an alligator helium and making it shout
A team of scientists who put an alligator in a helium-filled box and made it shout have won an Ig Nobel Prize, a prestigious(ish) award that commemorates the science world's more unorthodox experiments.
edition.cnn.com
We fled the smoke out West and just kept going
Tess Taylor recounts how her family fled California for a chance to breathe air free of smoke. From the Sierra Nevada Mountains, where ash was still falling, they just kept going east - to Salt Lake City and ultimately to South Dakota, where they paused to see blue sky and take respite from the toll of devastation.
edition.cnn.com
The Weaponization of the Free-Exercise Clause
There was a time when the Constitution’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion was a sort of shield, a protection for religious minorities from the prejudices of the powerful. No longer. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is in the process of transforming this First Amendment clause into a sword that politically powerful Christian conservatives can use to strike down hard-fought advances in civil rights, especially for LGBTQ individuals and women.At issue is whether religious believers who object to laws governing matters such as health care, labor protections, and antidiscrimination in public accommodations should have a right to an “exemption” from having to obey those laws. In recent years, religious pharmacists have claimed that they should not be required to fill prescriptions for a legal and authorized medical procedure if that procedure is inconsistent with their beliefs. A court clerk whose religion defined marriage as a union of a man and woman has claimed a free-exercise right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples who have a constitutional right to marry. Religious business owners, such as bakers and florists, who object to same-sex marriage have claimed a right to refuse service to same-sex couples. And employers have successfully asserted a right to deny their workers health-care benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to, such as contraception or abortion counseling.[Read: The separation of church and state is breaking down under Trump]Providing such religious exemptions has required a dramatic change in the law by the Supreme Court. In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment cannot be used as a basis for an exception to a general law, no matter how great the burden on religion, unless the government’s action can be shown to be based on animus to religion. The case involved a claim by Native Americans for a religious exception to an Oregon law prohibiting consumption of peyote.Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court ruling against the Native Americans and explained that it would be impossible to provide religious exemptions from civic obligations whenever a person disagreed with the law—there are just too many civic obligations and too many different religious views about those obligations. Also, if the government were to begin down this path, it inevitably would face the impossible task of defining a “religious” belief. Such an approach would force the Court to make intrinsically controversial and discriminatory decisions about which religious views were most deserving of special accommodation and which social values should be considered less important than the favored religious views.This decision was in line with the approach taken by the Supreme Court, in almost all cases, through American history. Courts long held that the Constitution did not require an exception to general laws on account of religious beliefs—that parents could not deny medical aid to their children, that they could not have them work in violation of child-labor laws, even if the work involved dispensing religious literature, that religious schools could not violate laws against racial discrimination, and that a Jewish Air Force psychologist could not ignore the uniform requirement by wearing a yarmulke.Unfortunately, the conservative justices on the current Court reject Scalia’s reasoning and may be about to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. If they do so, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will in essence be saying that the views of Christian conservatives are more important than legal protections for workers and people who seek to engage in ordinary commercial activity without suffering discrimination.The first sign of this shift came with the 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, when for the first time in American history, the Court held that the religious beliefs of a business’s owner allowed it to refuse to provide employees with a benefit required by law. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide health-insurance coverage, including coverage for contraceptives for women. The Affordable Care Act had already carved out an exemption for religious not-for-profit organizations, so that, for example, a Catholic diocese would not have to provide contraceptive care to its employees. (Legislatures can choose to give religious exemptions, even though the Constitution does not require them.) But at issue in Hobby Lobby were the rights of the owners of a purely secular business. The five conservative justices held that a family-owned corporation could deny contraceptive coverage to women employees based on the business owners’ religious beliefs.[Read: When the religious doctor refuses to treat you]The dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pointed out that “the distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention,” and wondered about religious employers who were offended by health coverage of vaccines, or equal pay for women, or medications derived from pigs, or the use of antidepressants. At the very least, there is a compelling interest in protecting access to contraceptives, which the Supreme Court has deemed a fundamental right.In June 2020, the Court ruled in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey Berru that teachers at a Catholic school could not sue for employment discrimination. The two cases before the Court involved a teacher who had sued for disability discrimination after losing her job following a breast-cancer diagnosis and a teacher who had sued for age discrimination after being replaced by a younger instructor.Previously, in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012), the Court said that a narrow exception protects religious organizations from being held liable for choices they make about their “ministers,” which traditionally have been considered “exclusively ecclesiastical questions” that the government should not second-guess. But now the Court has expanded that exception to all religious-school teachers, meaning that the schools can discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, and disability with impunity.This reflects a Court that is likely to expand the ability of businesses to discriminate based on their owners’ religious beliefs. A few years ago, the Court considered in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission whether a baker could refuse, on account of his religious beliefs, to design and bake a cake for a same-sex couple. This should be an easy decision: People should not be allowed to violate antidiscrimination laws because of religious beliefs, or any beliefs. For more than half a century, courts have consistently recognized that enforcing antidiscrimination laws is more important than protecting freedom to discriminate on account of religious beliefs. A person cannot invoke religious beliefs to refuse service or employment to Black people or women. Discrimination by sexual orientation is just as wrong. Although the justices in this case sidestepped the question of whether the free-exercise clause requires such an exemption, a number of other courts have ruled that compliance with general antidiscrimination laws might impose an impermissible burden on the free exercise of the owner’s religious beliefs, at least when the beliefs are Christian and the protected class includes gay and lesbian people. Moreover, the religious right has demanded that it is entitled to such exemptions.In recent months, the Court expanded civil-rights protection for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals, but there is reason to fear that the conservative justices are about to undercut this. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, forbids employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion left open the possibility of giving an exception to employers who discriminate because of their religious beliefs. The Court should emphatically reject such claims. Selling goods and hiring people on the open market is not the exercise of religion, and stopping discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a compelling government interest that judges should not dismiss because members of a favored religion disagree with the policy.[Chase Strangio: The trans future I never dreamed of]Unfortunately, the Court appears to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. Next term, which begins in October, the Court will consider, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, whether free exercise was violated by a city’s barring a Catholic Social Services agency from participating in placing children in foster care, because the agency refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents—in violation of the city’s general nondiscrimination policy. One of the questions before the Court is whether to “revisit” Employment Division v. Smith.Five justices may be about to do just that—paving the way for the Court to allow religious organizations and persons to ignore nondiscrimination laws that protect the LGBTQ community, as well as ignore federal requirements to provide full health benefits to women.Creating a free-exercise right to flout laws that protect other people would entangle judges in endless claims about which religions deserve this special treatment, to the great detriment of true religious liberty. Conservative Christians claim that if they are not given a privileged position in the political system to harm people in these ways, the government is demonstrating hostility to religion. But requiring religious people in the ordinary course of their lives to follow the rules that apply to everyone else is not hostility; it is equality.
theatlantic.com
Armand Duplantis breaks another pole vault world record
Having broken the indoor pole vault world record in February this year, yesterday at the Diamond League meeting in Rome, Armand "Mondo" Duplantis broke the outdoor world record too.
edition.cnn.com
U.S. Open Golf 2020: Friday Tee Times, Second Round Pairings at Winged Foot
First-round leader Justin Thomas tees off at 1:27 p.m. ET alongside 15-time major winner Tiger Woods.
newsweek.com
'Big Brother's' Memphis Garrett Cleared Of Using Racial Slur, Many Fans Unconvinced
CBS has come to Garrett's defense after fans of the reality show called for his eviction.
newsweek.com
Oregon Fire Map, Update, Storm to Help Firefighters Battle the Blazes
A storm in the early hours of Friday may help contain the wildfires as Gov. Kate Brown says: "Our firefighters are grateful for rain."
newsweek.com
Newt Gingrich: Rep. Kevin McCarthy and the House GOP's 'Commitment to America'
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the House Republicans unveiled their Commitment to America this week
foxnews.com
Column: QAnon's monstrous conspiracy theories fit the Trumpian moment
A vocal faction of Americans — some seeking high places — are trafficking in canards: 5G is deadly, COVID-19 is a hoax, blue state pedophiles roam the halls of Congress. No wonder they might also believe Tom Hanks — Tom Hanks! — is a cannibal.
latimes.com
Editorial: A COVID-19 vaccine doesn't exist yet, but already people don't trust it
A COVID-19 vaccine doesn't even exist yet, and already many people don't trust it, thanks to the mixed messaging that has defined the White House's response to the pandemic.
latimes.com
Trump faces a bigger decision than TikTok -- What to do about China’s WeChat
The Commerce Department is scheduled to decide by Sunday which U.S. transactions with WeChat to ban.
washingtonpost.com
Op-Ed: Why remote learning is hard — and how to make it easier
There are psychological reasons Zoom school is so difficult. Luckily, science also gives us some solutions.
latimes.com
Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 17: Parolees deserve the right to vote
Parolees should get their right to vote restored while they are on parole.
latimes.com
Op-Ed: The pandemic food fascination that won't go away
Maybe bougie food fantasies will accompany us all the way through the destruction of life as we know it?
latimes.com
Texas youth hockey coach, 29, dies from coronavirus complications days after feeling sick
A 29-year-old North Texas youth hockey coach died late last month from coronavirus complications after feeling sick for just three days
foxnews.com
Police have shot people experiencing a mental health crisis. Who should you call instead?
After the death of Daniel Prude, some are calling for more police mental health training while others are promoting alternative crisis responders.        
usatoday.com
Dwayne Haskins is off to a solid start, but his push to prove himself has just begun
Before he coached Dwayne Haskins, Ron Rivera got some important advice from Urban Meyer: Challenge him.
washingtonpost.com
Oil companies aren’t actually going green — but some are heading there faster than others
Adopting a few climate-friendly measures is one way that companies hedge against tighter regulations.
washingtonpost.com
Deep in Oregon wilderness, five men battle wildfire to save a historic resort
Five men stayed behind, after dozens of guests and staffers were evacuated in the face of a massive wildfire, to save Breitenbush, a famed Oregon hot springs retreat.
latimes.com
Kevin McCarthy and the House Republican Commitment to America | Opinion
When Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the House Republicans unveiled their Commitment to America agenda this week, they were operating in the best tradition of the modern House GOP.
newsweek.com
Suffolk Police face $20M cut amid fiscal crisis, county executive says
Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone plans to slash police spending by $20 million to deal with a fiscal crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic. Bellone, who will unveil his grim plan later Friday, told The Post he’s canceling two police recruitment classes for 200 police officers to save $9 million and suspending the class for...
nypost.com
Emmy-Nominated Cecily Strong Defined 'SNL,' Now She's Ready to Sing on Apple TV
"Thanks to Donald Trump for making Jeanine a household name so that I can act like a clown," Cecily Strong tells Newsweek about portraying Jeanine Pirro on 'SNL.'
newsweek.com
Seven spots for a socially distant Oktoberfest
Here’s where to find a giant mug of beer and some roast pig over the next few weeks.
washingtonpost.com
Bill Barr’s Stinging Attack on Bill Barr
In an administration that tends toward incoherence and lunacy, Bill Barr’s great strength is the ability to sound levelheaded. The attorney general is calm, cogent, and logical—and, in contrast to many of his Cabinet colleagues, clearly well studied and qualified for his role.Barr’s sober demeanor allows him to make a lot of arguments that sound reasonable and persuasive when delivered, as he demonstrated in a speech to Hillsdale College on Wednesday. The problem comes when you start trying to reconcile what he says with the Justice Department’s actions. It’s almost as if there are two Bill Barrs, arguing with each other. If you take what Bill Barr says when he’s posing as a wise legal theorist seriously, you should be very worried about what Bill Barr is actually doing as attorney general.For example, although there have been accusations that Trump has improperly intervened in the Justice Department, Wise Legal Theorist Bill Barr contends that nothing is amiss, because in a democracy, the people should have ultimate control over the legal system: The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics. It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice. But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny. The Justice Department, he adds, “is an agency within the Executive Branch of a democratic republic—a form of government where the power of the state is ultimately reposed in the people acting through their elected president and elected representatives.” (Barr later adds, “Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency.” Referring to your employees as preschoolers might be good red meat in a speech to a conservative audience, but it’s no way to run a federal agency.)All reasonable stuff on its face. But Attorney General Bill Barr seems to disagree. After all, he assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to conduct an extensive review of Obama administration officials involved in investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including “unmaskings” related to Michael Flynn, whose prosecution for lying to FBI agents he is seeking to drop. Weren’t those just the actions of democratically accountable executive-branch officials exercising their lawful authority?[Read: Why the Democrats can’t nail Bill Barr]Wise Legal Theorist Barr argues that the officials of the Department of Justice are accountable, in part, because “the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public.” But under Attorney General Barr, the Justice Department has repeatedly stonewalled Congress. The attorney general himself long refused to testify to the House, and the Justice Department has supported Trump’s attempts to argue that allegations of misconduct against him can be pursued neither by the justice system nor via congressional investigation.Wise Legal Theorist Bill Barr fulminates against: taking vague statutory language and then applying it to a criminal target in a novel way that is, at a minimum, hardly the clear consequence of the statutory text.This is inherently unfair because criminal prosecutions are backward-looking. We charge people with crimes based on past conduct. If it was unknown or even unclear that the conduct was illegal when the person engaged in it, that raises real questions about whether it is fair to prosecute the person criminally for it. The result of this, he says, is “prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures.”Quite right. Has Attorney General Bill Barr heard this critique? He is the person who reportedly told prosecutors to consider charging violent protestors with sedition—that is, plotting to overthrow the United States government. That’s a rarely used charge, and is practically unheard-of in the case of mere violent protests. Now there is a movement that is seeking to provoke a civil war, the “boogaloo.” Federal prosecutors have charged several boogaloo adherents with violent acts over the summer, but Barr himself has been more focused on the left-wing “antifa,” a loose group that, whatever its dangers, does not have seem to have any intention of toppling the government.Barr is also the person who has reportedly asked prosecutors to look into criminal charges against Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan for allowing protesters to establish a police-free zone in one section of the city over the summer, in what would almost certainly be a novel application of civil-rights laws. (Barr denies this.) And he’s the person who has rushed a decision to bring antitrust charges against Google over the objections of career lawyers. As Wise Legal Theorist Bill Barr would be quick to tell us, this is Attorney General Bill Barr’s prerogative, but it hardly exemplifies the careful, meticulous application of legal theories that he called for in the speech.Wise Legal Theorist Bill Barr warns that bringing charges against prominent figures in this way creates a “criminalization of politics” in which the legal system is used to punish behavior that is merely “questionable,” and not illegal. This is an important point. There’s all sorts of behavior that is unsavory and perhaps even corrupt in a colloquial sense, but not illegal, and it’s a matter for the political system, not the criminal-justice system, to deal with.[Sarah Chayes: Hunter Biden’s perfectly legal, socially acceptable corruption]This seems almost like a rebuke to Attorney General Bill Barr, who blasted Democrats for using the (political) process of impeachment to go after Trump’s attempt to extort Ukraine into assisting his reelection effort, accusing them of taking the president conducting the business of his office, and misconstruing it as misconduct. Yet Barr was also eagerly accepting information from Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son Hunter in Ukraine—dealings that indeed seem questionable, but about which there remains no proof of criminality.If Barr is so worried about the criminalization of politics, he can find the chief culprit in the White House. His boss won office on a platform of locking up his opponent, complaining that no charges had ever been brought against her—and then repeatedly pressured Barr’s predecessor to investigate her and find some pretense, any pretense, to prosecute her.Much of what Barr said in his Hillsdale speech makes a great deal of sense in the abstract. Of course it’s good for ultimate responsibility to rest not with career bureaucrats who are largely unaccountable to the public, but with political appointees accountable to the president, Congress, and finally voters. Of course it’s dangerous for people to be charged under novel legal theories, applied retroactively. Of course politics should not be criminalized. So why doesn’t he take his own advice?“The Justice Department is not a praetorian guard that watches over society impervious to the ebbs and flows of politics,” Barr said in his Hillsdale speech. Instead, with Barr at the helm, the Justice Department is a praetorian guard that faithfully serves its president, highly attuned to the ebbs and flows of politics.
theatlantic.com
Queasy Rider: The Uncertain Future of Harley-Davidson
A gasoline-soaked symbol of America finds itself at a crossroads.
slate.com
Think You’re Smarter Than Slate’s Director of Media Relations? Find Out With This Week’s News Quiz.
Test your knowledge of this week’s big stories.
slate.com
Why I Changed My Mind About the Caster Semenya Case
She should be allowed to compete against women and defend her Olympic title.
slate.com
Things Are Not Getting Better for Susan Collins
Plus six other vulnerable GOP senators.
slate.com
As firefighters hope to gain ground on some West Coast fires, others prompt more evacuations
With rain finally arriving in parts of the West Coast, fire officials hope the forecast will help them gain ground on the deadly wildfires that forced thousands to evacuate this week.
edition.cnn.com
No Revenue Is No Problem in the 2020 Stock Market
First, Nikola. Now SPAC mania targets the next wave of untested electric vehicle companies.
washingtonpost.com
Aaron Judge on Yankees’ chances: ‘We have best team out there’
So much about baseball has changed since March 12, when the first spring training was shut down due to the coronavirus. Empty ballparks. Seven-inning doubleheaders. Designated hitters in the AL and NL. Alternate sites replaced minor league games. Teams forced to quarantine after players tested positive for COVID-19. Bubbles in front of postseason bubbles. The...
1 h
nypost.com
Obama Book Coming Post-Election Saves Former President Overshadowing Biden
The first volume of the former president's upcoming memoir is due to be released two weeks after election day.
1 h
newsweek.com
Covid has stopped most adventures. But this family is still setting sail on an epic voyage
The oceans have emptied over the past few months, with seagoing voyagers around the world seeking safe harbor amid fears that Covid outbreaks or restrictions could leave them stranded with nowhere to go.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Covid has stopped most adventures. But this family is still setting sail on an epic voyage
At at time when most sailors have found safe harbor to avoid being stranded due to Covid-19, an Italian couple have stirred controversy with plans to embark on a year-long sailboat trip with their three young children.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Trump Tells Rally in Wisconsin, Where Riots Flared and He Is Losing, 'I Saved the Suburbs'
Wisconsin is a crucial battleground state—one which Trump won only narrowly in 2016—but three recent polls put Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden in the lead.
1 h
newsweek.com
Trying Seven Unique Pizza Recipes From Around the World
No matter how you slice it, one pizza-themed episode of “Around the World” simply wasn’t enough for Great Big Story senior producer Beryl Shereshewsky. The pizza enthusiast asked for your recommendations on how you top your pizza. And, wow, a lot of you put pineapple on your pizza. Who knew that was a thing, from Malaysia to Sweden to Australia? She tries pizza topped with everything from Thousand Island dressing to gruyère cheese to bacon in this special episode of “Around the World.”
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Mets taking it slow with Jacob deGrom’s hamstring injury
Jacob deGrom’s right hamstring is showing improvement, but the Mets are still taking it slow in declaring the right-hander set for his next scheduled start. A day after the Mets ace departed after just two innings because of a spasm in the hamstring, manager Luis Rojas was encouraged with the signs. “The response was actually...
1 h
nypost.com
Michigan driver arrested after pulling 'Dukes of Hazzard' stunt over Detroit bridge
A Michigan man was arrested Wednesday night after apparently jumping a Detroit drawbridge in "Dukes of Hazzard" fashion, according to multiple reports.
1 h
foxnews.com
Tucker Carlson says alleged Nashville coronavirus data 'cover-up,' other obfuscations 'unforgivable'
Tucker Carlson weighs in on the coronavirus cover-up in Nashville
1 h
foxnews.com
Ready for School to Start? For Most Students, Not So Fast.
Mayor Bill de Blasio's abrupt announcement of a phased start to in-person classes left many parents with little lead time to make alternative arrangements. 
1 h
nytimes.com
Hear from outgoing US ambassador to China on US-China relationship
Speaking to CNN's David Culver in Beijing, China, the outgoing US Ambassador to China Terry Branstad denounced Beijing's initial handling of coronavirus, saying that "what could have been contained in Wuhan ended up becoming a worldwide pandemic."
1 h
edition.cnn.com
United Kingdom sees spike in coronavirus cases, second lockdown may be looming
1 h
foxnews.com