Tools

Nokia CEO sees possible benefits from Huawei tensions

Nokia Chief Executive Rajeev Suri said on Tuesday the company could benefit from a U.S. clampdown on Chinese rival Huawei as the race to roll out 5G services heats up.
Load more
Read full article on: reuters.com
Man arrested and charged over missing Amish teenage girl who vanished last month
A Pennsylvania man has been charged with the kidnapping of an Amish teenager who has been missing since last month and has yet to be found.
abcnews.go.com
Val Demings' police background could complicate her Biden VP chances
U.S. Rep. Val Demings’ background as Orlando, Fla.'s first female police chief could complicate her chances of becoming Joe Biden’s running mate.
foxnews.com
Usman eases past Masvidal on UFC 'Fight Island' debut
The "Nigerian Nightmare" might not have given his opponent a terribly bad dream but he still eased to victory in the main event on the debut of UFC's "Fight Island."
edition.cnn.com
Usman cruises on UFC 'Fight Island' debut
edition.cnn.com
Presidents Leave. Czars Stick Around.
American presidents customarily leave office when voters reject them. Czars, emperors, and would-be prime ministers for life do whatever they can to hold on to power. To extend his rule until 2026, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently held a referendum to amend his country’s constitution. While some Russians publicly opposed the proposal, few had any doubt about the outcome. Two years ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping succeeded in eliminating term limits that had been established after Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution—a period of ideological madness that killed tens of millions of people, including family members of the country’s ruling class. In his grand presidential address of 2017, Xi stated specific objectives for his nation to achieve by 2025, 2035, and 2049, the centennial of the People’s Republic of China—suggesting that he intended to lead China until at least 2035 (when he would be 82).Even in democracies, circumstances sometimes allow deeply compromised leaders to remain in office. Benjamin Netanyahu has already become the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, having survived repeated scandals. He is currently facing an indictment for bribery and fraud brought by Israel’s attorney general. In the past year, even though he could not win a majority of the Israeli Parliament in three successive elections, Netanyahu successfully maneuvered to keep his position on each occasion. Now in the second month of a three-year “deal” with Defense Minister Benny Gantz that allows him to remain prime minister for 18 months, Netanyahu has made a commitment to swap roles for the subsequent 18 months. But many expect him to renege on those terms, or try to renegotiate them, before Gantz takes over.In short, three leaders whom Donald Trump has praised have extended their tenure in office. On this canvas, what could Trump do? Undoubtedly, a whiff of paranoia is evident in many claims of potential skullduggery now swirling about. And yet the fear that Trump may not leave office, no matter what happens in November, has become mainstream. Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has called the prospect that “this president is going to try to steal this election” his “single greatest concern.”[Read: Putin is well on his way to stealing the next election]Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, and Trump all differ from one another in many ways, of course. But each has reasons to avoid relinquishing his hold on power. Putin, Xi, and Netanyahu genuinely have grand ambitions. Each wants to expand his country’s formal borders—Russia’s into Ukraine, Israel’s into the West Bank, China’s to reintegrate Hong Kong and Taiwan. Trump’s signature banner promises to “Make America great again,” and the thought that this could include territorial expansion—specifically the purchase of Greenland—has also occurred to him.The most generous explanation for why these men might believe themselves indispensable is this: Who else can any of them trust to achieve their ambitions? The more cynical questions to ask are: If any of these four leaders leaves office, who could ensure his freedom from arrest and humiliation? Who would guarantee the wealth and well-being of his family and friends?Historically, heads of state clung to power until they died or were overthrown. Of the 23 czars who ruled Russia from 1547 to 1917, how many voluntarily handed over power to a successor? Zero. Fifteen died of natural causes, six were overthrown, and two were assassinated. Over roughly the same four centuries, China had 16 emperors—all but one of whose reigns ended involuntarily: by death or forced abdication. Call it the czar’s dilemma: However daunting the challenges of holding power, the dangers of losing it are even greater.America’s Founding Fathers recognized this dilemma. They created a republic, not a monarchy, with an elected chief executive. Acutely conscious of the abuses of “mad King George,” they designed a Constitution of what the presidential scholar Richard Neustadt called “separated institutions sharing power.” By dividing power among the president, Congress, and the courts—and by giving them separate sources of legitimacy—they created a complex system in which each checks and balances the others. While that has invited a continuous struggle for power that has made governing messy and often ugly, their purpose, as Justice Louis Brandeis famously explained, was “not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary authority.”[Jeffrey Rosen: Hamilton would not have stood for Trump’s new constitutional theory]Buttressing constitutional limits on presidential power was the wise precedent that George Washington established when he stepped down after two terms. No one broke that tradition until Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected four times during the Great Depression and World War II. As one of his colleagues quipped, the only way he would ever leave the White House was in a coffin. And that’s the way he exited in 1945. Within six years of his death, Congress had passed and three-quarters of the states had ratified the Twenty-Second Amendment, which now limits presidents to two terms.But the amendment does not close off every avenue by which a president could hang on. Lawrence Douglas, the author of Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020, argues that the current American electoral system has a “Chernobyl-like defect”: Nothing in the Constitution or federal laws guarantees a peaceful transfer of power from a sitting president to his successor.Why would an elected head of state transfer the immense powers of the presidency to an opponent whom he believes could be a threat to his nation, his vision, and even himself? Just because some people claim that the opponent received more votes in an election in which both parties are pointing to irregularities and abuses?Central to the democratic transfer of power is a norm of deference to process. All elections have many inconsistencies and aberrations. But successful democracies require a strong presumption of respect for the legitimacy of the electoral process—indeed, a willingness to accept outcomes that are messy, controversial, and perhaps even perverse. Yet as poisonous partisanship has spread into every aspect of government, claims of voter suppression, fraudulent mail-in ballots, and abuses in disqualifying voters and counting votes are eroding that presumption. And unfortunately, the labyrinthine process between a citizen’s vote and the outcome of a presidential election offers many opportunities for the suspicious or paranoid to claim that the election was rigged or the results a sham.[Read: The voting disaster ahead]While citizens across the nation will vote for president on November 3, the winner is determined not by the popular vote but by the Electoral College. The process has four steps that, under normal conditions, produce a clear result. First, prior to the election, Electoral College votes are allocated among states according to the decennial U.S. census (which presumes that the census is completed properly). Second, citizens cast their vote for the candidate of their choosing (and the corresponding slate of electors), and each state counts votes according to its own procedures. Third, the electors for the winning candidate in each state meet, vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, and send that report to Congress. Finally, on January 6, a joint session of Congress certifies states’ electoral votes and declares a winner.To win, a candidate must have 270 electoral votes. But if no candidate reaches that threshold, because some states’ electoral votes are contested or disqualified, the Constitution says that the House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate the vice president. In making these choices, each state casts a single vote. That Democrats have the majority in the House today does not matter. What matters is that in 26 of the 50 states, Republicans hold a majority of the House delegation. If Republicans retain this advantage after the November election, they will elect Trump. Alternatively, if Democrats succeed in wresting a seat or two from Republicans in a few closely divided states, they would then have a majority and elect Biden. If Democrats flip only one state, neither party would reach the minimum 26 votes. The Constitution offers no guidance on what happens next.This November 3 will be unlike any previous presidential election. Some states are requiring in-person voting, while others are allowing mail-in balloting at an unprecedented level. Many are experimenting with new ways to protect the vote from foreign interference. Amid the many possible uncertainties, the outcome of the November vote could be as confused as that of the Iowa caucus in February. Could we see failures in voting systems like the fiasco in the Georgia primary election last month, or the long wait for results like in the more recent congressional primaries in New York and Kentucky? Under a cloud of fraud and abuse allegations, could Americans see both candidates claiming victory?[Garrett Epps: The Supreme Court is not going to fix the electoral college]For some readers, the thought of a presidential election without a clear victor may sound fanciful. Yet the United States has endured a number of seriously contested presidential elections, each of which highlights dangers that could arise again this year.In the 1824 contest between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Jackson clearly won the popular vote and had the largest number of votes in the Electoral College—though he fell 32 short of a majority. In what Jackson rightly denounced as a “corrupt bargain,” Adams made a deal with Henry Clay, a senator and the leader of the South Carolina electors, who had voted solidly for Jackson. For persuading his state’s delegates to switch their votes to Adams, Clay became Adams’s secretary of state. Although he accepted the loss, Jackson spent the next four years waging a political war against Adams, undercutting his authority in Washington and across America on the grounds that his presidency was illegitimate. And when the two faced off again in 1828, Jackson won by a large margin, ushering in the Jacksonian revolution.A decade after the Civil War, the presidential election of 1876 was even more bitterly contested. The Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, beat the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, in the popular vote, but 20 decisive electoral votes remained in dispute. When neither side could agree on an outcome, the country wobbled on the brink of chaos. Outgoing President Ulysses S. Grant developed contingency plans for martial law, lest the country return to civil war. The election was not resolved until months later, when the parties struck a secret deal. According to the Compromise of 1877, Hayes became president—but in return he agreed to remove federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction.In 2000, the presidential contest between George W. Bush and incumbent Vice President Al Gore came down to one swing state: Florida. Bush had a significant lead there as Election Night came to a close. But by morning the following day, television networks had to retract their announcements of the victor. Without a win in Florida, neither candidate had the required 270 electoral votes. As Florida began recounting its ballots, disputes arose about whether ballots with “hanging chads” should be disqualified and, eventually, whether and how the recount should continue. The matter finally went to the Supreme Court, which in a 5–4 decision sided with the Republicans—in effect, awarding victory to Bush. In his concession speech, Gore said: “Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”Historically, the difference between a would-be U.S. president and a czar has been that the former accepts the possibility of defeat at the ballot box. After a heated campaign one year before the nation dissolved into civil war, Stephen Douglas conceded to Abraham Lincoln with the words “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism.” Yet that clear principle may wither in the face of a close election—especially if the current president is insistent on holding on to power. If our society remains discombobulated amid a continuing pandemic, if voter-suppression measures keep some Americans from having their say, if mail-in-ballot glitches and foreign interference affect vote counts, and if exit polls suggest that the election is close, nightmare scenarios become more probable. Under these conditions, America’s best hope for escaping the czar’s dilemma is for one candidate to win decisively.
theatlantic.com
Louisville mayor upstaged by protesters at news conference: video
It appears nobody had Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer’s back during a news conference on Friday.
foxnews.com
Op-Ed: As a hospice chaplain, I can only ask: Why aren't you wearing a mask?
As a patient dies of COVID-19, a hospice chaplain provides support for his family and medical staff. Her message: Wear a mask.
1 h
latimes.com
Historians will likely rank Trump as one of the worst presidents
Poll of the week: A new Gallup poll puts President Donald Trump's approval rating at 38%. His disapproval rating stands at 57%.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Letters to the Editor: Don't celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Trump isn't a king
The Supreme Court could have ruled that Trump must immediately comply with subpoenas from Congress and New York, but it did not. That's a win for Trump.
1 h
latimes.com
Newt Gingrich: Alarming anti-Semitism surge, other major issues addressed in upcoming Daniel Silva novel
One doesn’t always need to read a newspaper or a report by some prominent think tank to examine the major issues of our troubled world.
1 h
foxnews.com
Op-Ed: Why we need Black filmmakers to tell the story of 2020
The people who have the power to tell the story of this moment of national reckoning will shape how future generations will come to understand it.
1 h
latimes.com
Letters to the Editor: Discrimination is ungodly — yet religious freedom protects it?
Using the "ministerial exception" as a cover to fire teachers for being elderly or disabled is profoundly unethical.
1 h
latimes.com
Letters to the Editor: We're told to wear a mask, not storm the beaches on D-Day
If we cannot now do a fraction of what previous generations have been told to do in a crisis, then we are a failed society.
1 h
latimes.com
Editorial: California condors pass another milestone on the road to recovery
It took federal support, belief in a bigger cause and trust in science to bring back this critically endangered species.
1 h
latimes.com
Editorial: Democrats' proposed police reforms are so modest it's embarrassing they're not already law
Democrats' police reform bill is a set of modest and in may cases decades-old proposals to raise performance standards and provide consequences for failure.
1 h
latimes.com
Polls show Trump is losing to Joe Biden. They said the same thing 4 years ago against Hillary Clinton
Polls got it wrong when they showed Hillary Clinton defeating Trump in 2016. But pollsters say surveys showing Biden over Trump are more trustworthy.        
1 h
usatoday.com
Op-Ed: Is the California dream finished?
Gov. Gavin Newsom and state leaders like to talk about the sunny myth of California's promise. But a huge proportion of Californians face staggering economic burdens and very little way out of poverty.
1 h
latimes.com
Some Americans refuse to mask up. Rules, fines and free masks will change that, experts say.
Experts spoke in support of rules and fines, likening refusal to wear a mask with traffic violations that put other drivers at risk.        
1 h
usatoday.com
D.C.-area forecast: Humidity dips a bit for now, but the heat streak continues
Today is likely to be our 17th straight day reaching 90 degrees or higher at Reagan National. That would put us just four days from tying Washington’s longest such streak on record.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Column: Boeing executive steps down over a 33-year-old essay. 'Cancel culture' has gone off the rails
Some people have been caught up unfairly in the country's overdue reckoning on race and gender.
1 h
latimes.com
The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic
Members of Heaven’s Gate, a religious cult, believed that as the Hale-Bopp comet passed by Earth in 1997, a spaceship would be traveling in its wake—ready to take true believers aboard. Several members of the group bought an expensive, high-powered telescope so that they might get a clearer view of the comet. They quickly brought it back and asked for a refund. When the manager asked why, they complained that the telescope was defective, that it didn’t show the spaceship following the comet. A short time later, believing that they would be rescued once they had shed their “earthly containers” (their bodies), all 39 members killed themselves.Heaven’s Gate followers had a tragically misguided conviction, but it is an example, albeit extreme, of cognitive dissonance, the motivational mechanism that underlies the reluctance to admit mistakes or accept scientific findings—even when those findings can save our lives. This dynamic is playing out during the pandemic among the many people who refuse to wear masks or practice social distancing. Human beings are deeply unwilling to change their minds. And when the facts clash with their preexisting convictions, some people would sooner jeopardize their health and everyone else’s than accept new information or admit to being wrong.Cognitive dissonance, coined by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, describes the discomfort people feel when two cognitions, or a cognition and a behavior, contradict each other. I smoke is dissonant with the knowledge that Smoking can kill me. To reduce that dissonance, the smoker must either quit—or justify smoking (“It keeps me thin, and being overweight is a health risk too, you know”). At its core, Festinger’s theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful. One of us (Aronson), who was a protégé of Festinger in the mid-’50s, advanced cognitive-dissonance theory by demonstrating the powerful, yet nonobvious, role it plays when the concept of self is involved. Dissonance is most painful when evidence strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves—when it threatens our belief that we are kind, ethical, competent, or smart. The minute we make any decision—I’ll buy this car; I will vote for this candidate; I think COVID-19 is serious; no, I’m sure it is a hoax—we will begin to justify the wisdom of our choice and find reasons to dismiss the alternative. Before long, any ambivalence we might have felt at the time of the original decision will have morphed into certainty. As people justify each step taken after the original decision, they will find it harder to admit they were wrong at the outset. Especially when the end result proves self-defeating, wrongheaded, or harmful.[Tess Wilkinson-Ryan: Our Minds Aren’t Equipped for This Kind of Reopening]The theory inspired more than 3,000 experiments that have transformed psychologists’ understanding of how the human mind works. One of Aronson’s most famous experiments showed that people who had to go through an unpleasant, embarrassing process in order to be admitted to a discussion group (designed to consist of boring, pompous participants) later reported liking that group far better than those who were allowed to join after putting in little or no effort. Going through hell and high water to attain something that turns out to be boring, vexatious, or a waste of time creates dissonance: I’m smart, so how did I end up in this stupid group? To reduce that dissonance, participants unconsciously focused on whatever might be good or interesting about the group and blinded themselves to its prominent negatives. The people who did not work hard to get into the group could more easily see the truth—how boring it was. Because they had very little investment in joining, they had very little dissonance to reduce.The term cognitive dissonance has since escaped the laboratory and is found everywhere—from op-eds and movie reviews to humor columns (as in The New Yorker’s “Cognitive Dissonances I’m Comfortable With”). But few people fully appreciate the mechanism’s enormous motivational power—and the lengths people go to in order to reduce its discomfort.For example, when people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties. The social psychologist Lee Ross, in laboratory experiments designed to find ways to reduce the bitter conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, took peace proposals created by Israeli negotiators, labeled them as Palestinian proposals, and asked Israeli citizens to judge them. “The Israelis liked the Palestinian proposal attributed to Israel more than they liked the Israeli proposal attributed to the Palestinians,” he told us. “If your own proposal isn’t going to be attractive to you when it comes from the other side, what chance is there that the other side’s proposal is going to be attractive when it actually comes from the other side?”Because of the intense polarization in our country, a great many Americans now see the life-and-death decisions of the coronavirus as political choices rather than medical ones. In the absence of a unifying narrative and competent national leadership, Americans have to choose who to believe as they make decisions about how to live: the scientists and the public-health experts, whose advice will necessarily change as they learn more about the virus, treatment, and risks? Or President Donald Trump and his acolytes, who suggest that masks and social distancing are unnecessary or “optional”?The cognition I want to go back to work or I want to go to my favorite bar to hang out with my friends is dissonant with any information that suggests these actions might be dangerous—if not to individuals themselves, then to others with whom they interact.How to resolve this dissonance? People could avoid the crowds, parties, and bars and wear a mask. Or they could jump back into their former ways. But to preserve their belief that they are smart and competent and would never do anything foolish to risk their lives, they will need some self-justifications: Claim that masks impair their breathing, deny that the pandemic is serious, or protest that their “freedom” to do what they want is paramount. “You’re removing our freedoms and stomping on our constitutional rights by these Communist-dictatorship orders,” a woman at a Palm Beach County commissioners’ hearing said. “Masks are literally killing people,” said another. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, referring to masks and any other government interventions, said, “More freedom, not more government, is the answer.” Vice President Mike Pence added his own justification for encouraging people to gather in unsafe crowds for a Trump rally: “The right to peacefully assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.”[Julia Marcus: The dudes who won’t wear masks]Today, as we confront the many unknowns of the coronavirus pandemic, all of us are facing desperately difficult decisions. When is it safe to get back to work? When can I reopen my business? When can I see friends and co-workers, start a new love affair, travel? What level of risk am I prepared to tolerate? The way we answer these questions has momentous implications for our health as individuals and for the health of our communities. Even more important, and far less obvious, is that because of the unconscious motivation to reduce dissonance, the way we answer these questions has repercussions for how we behave after making our initial decision. Will we be flexible, or will we keep reducing dissonance by insisting that our earliest decisions were right?Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible. The challenge is to find a way to live with uncertainty, make the most informed decisions we can, and modify them when the scientific evidence dictates—as our leading researchers are already doing. Admitting we were wrong requires some self-reflection—which involves living with the dissonance for a while rather than jumping immediately to a self-justification.Understanding how dissonance operates reveals a few practical lessons for overcoming it, starting by examining the two dissonant cognitions and keeping them separate. We call this the “Shimon Peres solution.” Peres, Israel’s former prime minister, was angered by his friend Ronald Reagan’s disastrous official visit to a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where members of the Waffen SS were buried. When asked how he felt about Reagan’s decision to go there, Peres could have reduced dissonance in one of the two most common ways: thrown out the friendship or minimized the seriousness of the friend’s action. He did neither. “When a friend makes a mistake,” he said, “the friend remains a friend, and the mistake remains a mistake.” Peres’s message conveys the importance of staying with the dissonance, avoiding easy knee-jerk responses, and asking ourselves, Why am I believing this? Why am I behaving this way? Have I thought it through or am I simply taking a short cut, following the party line, or justifying the effort I put in to join the group?Dissonance theory also teaches us why changing your brother-in-law’s political opinions is so hard, if not impossible—especially if he has thrown time, money, effort, and his vote at them. (He can’t change yours either, can he?) But if you want to try, don’t say the equivalent of “What are you thinking by not wearing a mask?” That message implies “How could you be so stupid?” and will immediately create dissonance (I’m smart versus You say I’m doing something stupid), making him almost certainly respond with defensiveness and a hardening of the belief (I was thinking how smart I am, that’s what, and masks are useless anyway). However, your brother-in-law may be more amenable to messages from others who share his party loyalty but who have changed their mind, such as the growing number of prominent Republicans now wearing masks. Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said, “Unfortunately, this simple, lifesaving practice has become part of a political debate that says: If you’re for Trump, you don’t wear a mask; if you’re against Trump, you do... The stakes are much too high for that.”This nasty, mysterious virus will require us all to change our minds as scientists learn more, and we may have to give up some practices and beliefs about it that we now feel sure of. The alternative will be to double down, ignore the error, and wait, as Trump is waiting, for the “miracle” of the virus disappearing.
1 h
theatlantic.com
Trump’s drop in polls has confident Democrats sensing ‘a tsunami coming’ in November
Both Democratic and Republican operatives increasingly view Trump as a drag on GOP candidates in many key Senate and House races — especially in suburban areas, where polling and focus group data suggest he has been bleeding support.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
How to Interview Celebrities, With Taffy Brodesser-Akner
Step 1: Figure out how the press has treated them in the past.
1 h
slate.com
Surgeon General Jerome Adams may be the nicest guy in the Trump administration. But is that what America needs right now?
In the midst of a surging pandemic, Adams is hoping to veer away from the political hot spot of Washington to get up-close and personal outside the Beltway.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Malcolm X (1992)
Spike Lee and Denzel Washington capture the power of Malcolm X’s rhetoric in this sweeping biopic.
1 h
slate.com
Dear Care and Feeding: My Husband and I Always Agreed We’d Have More Than One Child. Now He’s Changed His Mind.
Parenting advice on having another child, toxic parents, and dissolved friendships.
1 h
slate.com
More than 61,000 cases were recorded in the US on Saturday
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Three Arizona teachers who shared a classroom got coronavirus. One of them died
Three teachers who shared a summer classroom at a school in Arizona all contracted coronavirus last month, leaving one of them dead.
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Three teachers who shared a classroom got coronavirus. One of them died
Three teachers who shared a summer classroom at a school in Arizona all contracted coronavirus last month, leaving one of them dead.
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Kamaru Usman brushes off UFC 251 criticism, shows Jorge Masvidal respect
Kamaru Usman responds to online critics who said his UFC 251 fight was boring.       Related StoriesJorge Masvidal will do 'whatever it takes' to get Kamaru Usman rematch after UFC 251UFC 251 results: Kamaru Usman mostly dominant to outwork Jorge MasvidalDana White on referee stoppage in Petr Yan's win over Jose Aldo: 'Horrible, horrible' 
2 h
usatoday.com
Florida woman took dishwashing job so she could visit husband with Alzheimer's during pandemic
Mary Daniel visited her husband Steve every day at his Florida memory care center until they stopped allowing visitors in March because of the coronavirus pandemic.
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Woman took dishwashing job so she could visit husband with Alzheimer's during pandemic
Mary Daniel visited her husband Steve every day at his Florida memory care center until they stopped allowing visitors in March because of the coronavirus pandemic.
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Couples share how they found love in the middle of a pandemic
If you asked Alec Mahon one month ago whether he believed in love, he'd probably tell you he had "given up."
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Ohio protester, 22, died of natural causes, not pepper spray: autopsy
A 22-year-old woman who died two days after participating in a protest related to the death of George Floyd, died of natural causes – not from exposure to pepper spray, an autopsy determined.
2 h
foxnews.com
Love in the time of coronavirus: Couples share how they found matches in the middle of a pandemic
If you asked Alec Mahon one month ago whether he believed in love, he'd probably tell you he had "given up."
2 h
edition.cnn.com
Coronavirus live updates: Biden campaign slams Trump for ‘politicizing’ mask-wearing
The novel coronavirus pandemic has now killed more than 564,000 people worldwide and over 12.6 million people across the globe have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
2 h
abcnews.go.com
Inexpensive air conditioning alternatives to beat the summer heat
There’s nothing better than entering a nice air-conditioned house after being outside on a hot summer day. That is, unless you pay the bills and would like to have money left after paying said bills.
2 h
foxnews.com
Steve Levy: Trump wrong to give DACA recipients ‘road to citizenship’ — unless Dems change immigration policy
President Trump’s comment in an interview Friday that he will sign an executive order including a “road to citizenship” for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children and protected under the DACA program is mistake.
2 h
foxnews.com
Live with snoops or just want privacy? Tech smarts for your smartphone
Your phone is your constant coronavirus companion. It’s there for news, entertainment, work, and communication. It’s more important now than ever to make sure your phone doesn’t have a digital virus. Tap or click here for the tell-tale signs your phone is infected with malware, a keylogger, or worse.
2 h
foxnews.com
Same school, similar achievements, different skin: How race colors students' lives
Will and Omar's high school lives closely mirror one another. But because of the color of their skin, the world perceives them differently.        
2 h
usatoday.com
How Black therapists cope with racial trauma while helping a community
Four Black Louisville, Kentucky, therapists talk about living with racial and generational trauma, while helping others cope with it.        
2 h
usatoday.com
New study suggests COVID-19 brought American families closer together
Seventy-five percent of American parents witnessed a key moment in their child's life while in self-isolation, according to new research.
2 h
foxnews.com
Puerto Rico primary
Puerto Rico holds its Democratic primary on Sunday.
2 h
abcnews.go.com
Dana White on referee stoppage in Petr Yan's win over Jose Aldo: 'Horrible, horrible'
Dana White not happy with how long the ending of Petr Yan vs. Jose Aldo dragged out.       Related StoriesTwitter reacts to Petr Yan's drawn-out TKO of Jose Aldo to claim title at UFC 251Jorge Masvidal will do 'whatever it takes' to get Kamaru Usman rematch after UFC 251UFC 251 bonuses: Rose Namajunas-Jessica Andrade war nets 'Fight of the Night' honors 
3 h
usatoday.com
West Virginia mail carrier admits attempted election fraud
A West Virginia postal carrier pleaded guilty Thursday to altering mail-in requests for absentee voter ballots.
3 h
foxnews.com
Australian state of Victoria battling new wave of Covid-19 cases
3 h
edition.cnn.com
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle hit Beverly Hills in gas-guzzling SUV
Do as I say, not as I drive? Despite their eco-friendly agenda, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry recently tooled around Beverly Hills in a gas-guzzling SUV, the Daily Mail reported Saturday. Photos obtained by the Mail show the formerly royal couple popping into a black Cadillac Escalade. Online reviews have called the low-miles-per-gallon Escalade about...
3 h
nypost.com
City Hall ‘walks’ back Mayor’s plan for community leaders to ‘walk with police officers’
Mayor de Blasio has said community leaders would walk “with police officers” through violent hot spots in the city this weekend — but a day later, City Hall was backpedaling on the odd plan. Community leaders would indeed be going on the violence-prevention walks — including one Saturday night in Harlem — but the NYPD...
3 h
nypost.com