Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based biotech company known for its de-extinction agenda and previous claims about genetically engineering dire wolves, has successfully hatched 26 chicks from artificial eggs. The company now hopes to use the technology to bring back extinct birds, including the dodo and the giant moa. But skeptics say de-extinction is not possible and the company may be overstating its claims.

A whole new bird

Eggs are a biological wonder. They are the “largest single cell of any species” and a “self-contained engine of incubation, doing away with the need for a living womb to keep a growing organism safe,” said Time. Because of eggs’ unique properties, artificially engineering them is a difficult task. However, Colossal Biosciences has managed to 3D-print artificial eggs with a “semi-permeable silicone-based membrane housed inside a rigid hexagonal support cup,” said the company in a release. The membrane was “engineered to replicate the gas-exchange function of a natural eggshell — allowing oxygen to pass through while retaining moisture and blocking contaminants.”

The company released a video showing the hatching chicks. Researchers “took recently laid chicken eggs and carefully poured their contents into the artificial shells, where they continued growing,” said MIT Technology Review. A “window on top lets researchers peek inside.” To “see them all moving around in their artificial eggs was absolutely mind-blowing,” said Andrew Pask, Colossal Biosciences’ chief biology officer, to the outlet. “You really feel you can grow life outside of the womb.”

“Artificial egg” may be a misnomer, according to some. “You’ve poured in all the other parts that make it an egg. It’s an artificial eggshell,” said Vincent Lynch, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo, to CBS News. In addition, “producing a chick from an artificial vessel is not necessarily new,” said Nicola Hemmings, who studies bird reproductive biology at the UK’s University of Sheffield, to CBS News. In the past, scientists “used cruder technology to create transparent eggshells that hatched chicks from plastic films or sacks,” mainly to “study chicken development and glean insights that can also be applied to other mammals and even humans,” said CBS News.

A crack at de-extinction

The company’s artificial shell is just a first step in larger de-extinction plans. Colossal Biosciences’ ultimate goal is to bring back extinct birds like the giant moa or dodo. The egg’s design is “variable in size” and “scalable from hummingbird-egg dimensions down to the soccer-ball-sized eggs of the South Island giant moa, which once stood nearly 12 feet tall,” said the release.

Before the company can resurrect an extinct species, “scientists will need to genetically engineer bird DNA at a much earlier stage,” said National Geographic. “Once the fertilized egg is laid, the embryo already has around 50,000 cells — that’s way too many cells to bioengineer,” Hans Cheng, a retired molecular geneticist who teaches at Michigan State University, told the outlet.

Colossal Biosciences previously claimed it revived the extinct dire wolf and hopes to resurrect species like the woolly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger in the future. The company has also suggested its technology could support conservation efforts but included “no data or peer-reviewed scientific publications” in its release about the hatching chicks, “making it difficult to independently assess the claim,” said Nic Rawlence, an associate professor in ancient DNA at the University of Otago, at The Conversation. “If the technology lives up to the hype, it won’t be a silver bullet or panacea to stopping species declines, but it might just help.”

“Drake is looking to chart dominance to turn the page on one of the most infamous rap battles in music history,” said Ethan Millman in The Hollywood Reporter. Two weeks ago, the Canadian singer-rapper surprised even his fans when he released not one but three albums in a single day, bidding to become the first artist since Michael Jackson to simultaneously hold the first three slots on Billboard’s album chart. It’s impossible not to read the move as Drake’s response to his decisive loss to Kendrick Lamar in a 2024 rap beef that culminated with Lamar enlisting an entire Super Bowl halftime audience to join him in slurring Drake as a pedophile. Drake has sued over the accusation while now daring to tie himself to Jackson, even creating an album cover that shows a hand wearing one of the crystal-covered gloves that once belonged to the deceased accused pedophile. None of this fully makes sense, except that the album rollout is pushback, and whenever people debate who this century’s greatest rapper is, the argument for Drake “goes down to his pure commercial dominance.”

Drake’s three-album onslaught “does more than attempt a comeback,” said Jeff Ihaza in Rolling Stone. “It takes on the Herculean task of reframing the argument entirely.” On the tracks “Ran to Atlanta” and “2 Hard 4 the Radio,” both on the lead album, Iceman, the 39-year-old adopts Atlanta and West Coast sounds so effectively that he upends Lamar’s authenticity diss: that a mixed-race, middle-class rapper from Toronto had no business in the game. Meanwhile, Drake reignites at least a dozen beefs, comparing Lamar to Muggsy Bogues, the shortest NBA player ever, and lashing out at Jay-Z, A$AP Rocky, Dr. Dre, DJ Khaled, and even LeBron James. Across the record’s 69 minutes, though, “the bickering feels tedious.” Better is Habibti, an 11-song album that “finds Drake in romantic territory, embracing the R&B lover boy that audiences first came to love.” Meanwhile, the groove-centric Maid of Honour is “his strongest work since More Life,” released in 2017. From “Hoe Phase” on, Maid of Honour finds Drake “engaging deeply with niche Black regional sounds” and converting those sounds into so many bangers that the borrowing he’s been slagged for is “reframed as a form of cultural fluency.”

“Say what you want about Drake, but music needs someone like him right now,” said Steffanee Wang in The Fader. “A hateable target is one way to look at it; more generously, Drake’s an incredible showman.” No matter how high he ranks among the most streamed artists in the world—third behind Bad Bunny and Taylor Swift—he always acts as if he’s an underdog who needs to go nuclear when he releases solo music. And the strategy works. “Maybe it’s not Drake we wanted, but it’s Drake we got,” and “at least the public is talking for once, together, like we used to.”

When you make a purchase using links on our site, The Week may earn a commission. All reviews are written independently by our editorial team.

Manil Suri’s new memoir, A Room in Bombay, describes his coming of age in a single room that he shared with his parents before his move to the U.S. at age 20. Below, the author of the award-winning novel The Death of Vishnu recommends six books set in Indian cities.

‘The Heart is a Shifting Sea’ by Elizabeth Flock (2018)

With surprisingly candid reportage, Flock tracks the lives of three middle-class couples as they navigate life in a newly globalized Mumbai. Each couple finds that the notion of love, so romanticized in Bollywood movies, must be forged into something more practical if they are to survive the city’s myriad challenges. Buy it here.

‘Chapal Rani, the Last Queen of Bengal’ by Sandip Roy (2026)

A fascinating account of Chapal Bhaduri, one of the last iconic female impersonators in Kolkata. In a series of interviews, Chapal takes us from memories of his mother through the rise and fall of his career. A must for understanding how attitudes toward gender and sexuality have evolved in India’s larger cities. Buy it here.

‘The Sari Shop’ by Rupa Bajwa (2004)

Bajwa transports you into the heart of Amritsar, with its glitzy bazaars, dusty slums, and plush mansions. The story she weaves, about the widening gap between India’s classes, is ultimately devastating. Sadly, such stories still play out repeatedly in every corner of the country. Buy it here.

‘Ghachar Ghochar’ by Vivek Shanbhag (2017)

India has deep literary traditions in several regional languages, and this delicious novella, translated from Kannada, is a perfect amuse-bouche. The narrator’s family has moved to an affluent part of Bengaluru, and their attempts to head off meddling outsiders are at times subtle, at times pugnacious, but always hilarious. Buy it here.

‘Land Where I Flee’ by Prajwal Parajuly (2013)

Amma’s grandkids travel to remote and hilly Gangtok (a city “infested with stairs”) to celebrate her 84th birthday. Everyone has an acid tongue and brims with spiteful resentment. The resulting snark-fest makes this one of the funniest Indian novels I’ve ever read. Buy it here.

‘The Painter of Signs’ by R.K. Narayan (1976)

This classic work by one of the founding fathers of Indian fiction is set, like most of his novels, in the unhurried fictional town of Malgudi. Narayan’s bittersweet love story about a hapless painter’s crush on an emotionally distant social worker has lost none of its humor, relevance, or unconventionality. Buy it here.

‘This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through U.S. History’ by Beverly Gage

“In one obvious respect, This Land Is Your Land is perfectly timed,” said Jennifer Szalai in The New York Times. Our country’s looming semiquincentennial inspired historian Beverly Gage to embark on the “companionable” national tour she chronicles here. In 2023 and 2024, the Pulitzer Prize– winning author visited roughly 300 historical sites associated with particular events, choosing to focus on just 13, which she presents in chronological order. Because Gage avoids venerating or condemning her countrymen for past deeds, “what comes through is how complicated and just plain weird a lot of American history is.” The sites she visits are “often marked by contradiction,” which Gage “highlights to powerful effect.” And while her accounts of past events are never divisive, “as a historian, she knows that none of the attempts to fulfill the Declaration’s promise of freedom and equality has ever come easily.”

To anyone expecting an old-fashioned American road trip, with all the minor misadventures such journeys entail, “you’ll be disappointed,” said Ceci Browning in The Times (U.K.). As a guide to the story of the nation as told by its historic sites, though, “it’s pretty great.” Gage begins her tour in Philadelphia at the Museum of the American Revolution, which, she notices, lavishes more attention on George Washington’s tent than the thousands of soldiers he camped alongside. At Washington’s Mount Vernon home, barely a mention is made in the main tour of the people he enslaved. Gage admires the National Women’s Hall of Fame, in Seneca Falls, N.Y., but points out that it’s housed not in a majestic building but in a former sock factory. Does she end up making sense of the American story? “She certainly shows that ‘sense’ of any kind is getting harder and harder to come by” as the sites of many important events either venerate or condemn, simplifying history to make it easier for tourists to absorb.

Though Gage is “an accomplished historian and capable writer,” said Charles Lane in The Wall Street Journal, her “warts-and-all look at the American past dwells, a bit predictably, on the warts.” When the time comes to cover World War II, for example, she takes readers to the remnants of a Japanese internment camp and the atomic bomb testing site in Los Alamos, N.M. “If Gage wanted some celebratory leaven,” she’d have had plenty of options, including, say, the many sites in Dayton, Ohio, devoted to the Wright Brothers. But credit Gage for finding a fresh way to tell a history of the U.S., said Edmund Fawcett in the Financial Times. And while she does her best to stay hopeful, it’s clearly a struggle, given the dour mood of the nation amid its 250th year.

‘Beyond Inheritance: Our Ever-Mutating Cells and a New Understanding of Health’ by Roxanne Khamsi

“People tend to assume that the genes we inherit from our parents are a fixed blueprint for our growth and development,” said Jerome Groopman in The New Yorker. But medical researchers are increasingly interested in the ways our DNA is forever changing, and in Beyond Inheritance, science journalist Roxanne Khamsi “provides a useful guide to this body of research and its far-reaching implications.” Advances in DNA sequencing have revealed that of the 30 trillion cells in the human body, about 4 million are replaced every second, requiring 4 million copies of a code that’s many billions of letters long. Eventually, errors slip in, errors that accumulate. These can be harmful, producing cancer, while some have real benefits.

Still, Khamsi’s “disquieting” book vividly reveals the battle that our cells are forever waging against one another, said David A. Shaywitz in The Wall Street Journal. Cancers begin with a single mutant cell whose offspring compete for dominance while acquiring additional mutations that can render them resistant to medication. As even healthy-seeming people age, they accumulate mutant blood cells that have a growth advantage over healthy cells. This makes many seniors far more susceptible to blood cancers, heart attacks, and strokes. Mutant cells in the aging brain, meanwhile, appear to contribute to cognitive decline. At times, Khamsi “seems almost apologetic for the dismal message she carries,” but, from birth, a process is unfolding within us that will kill us if nothing else does sooner.

“It isn’t all bad news,” said Michael Le Page in New Scientist. Khamsi’s “most astonishing chapter” describes how mutations sometimes correct inherited conditions, including the rare immunological disorder associated with babies who must live in protective bubbles. Still, “helpful mutations are the exception rather than the rule,” and there’s apparently no escaping the damaging ones. Khamsi “doesn’t go on to draw what seems the obvious conclusion: that the only way to dramatically extend lifespans is to redesign the human genome to massively reduce the mutation rate.” While the resulting new beings may look like us, however, they’ll “no longer be human.”

The “AI slopification of music” is here, said Ece Yildirim in Gizmodo. It’s gotten so difficult to decipher which songs are human-made and which are synthetically produced by artificial intelligence that Spotify, the world’s largest audio-streaming service, announced recently it’s going to append a “verification badge” on trusted artists’ pages. It stopped short, however, of an AI ban. That would have hurt outfits like the Velvet Sundown—an indie band that garnered millions of streams on Spotify last summer. Fans later learned that the group was “completely AI-generated,” including a phony album cover featuring the smiling faces of four fake members. Another music streaming platform, Deezer, reported recently that “44% of its daily uploads were AI-generated songs,” and an “overwhelming majority of people couldn’t tell AI-generated music apart from songs written and performed by actual humans.” Humans have been making music for 35,000 years. But AI could be about to end our run.

Billboard allowing fake artists on its charts isn’t helping, said Peter A. Berry in Bloomberg. For 113 years, the music and entertainment brand has served as an “institutional gatekeeper,” and its rankings were always a “competition between human beings and the limits they naturally possess.” But in November, Billboard opened its hallowed charts to nonhumans for the first time, allowing streams of songs by AI performers like country music act Breaking Rust and R&B singer Xania Monet to count alongside Taylor Swift and Beyoncé. If Billboard wants to create a separate chart for AI creations, fine. But humans shouldn’t be “competing against machines” that can “generate abilities that aren’t naturally there.”

“The flood of AI music shows no signs of abating,” said Terrence O’Brien in The Verge, and it won’t as long as platforms keep allowing it. “In survey after survey, public opinion toward AI music is pretty unfavorable,” with people most worried about synthetic artists degrading the music. But “companies are hesitant to penalize AI use in part because they expect it to become a standard tool in the industry” as more artists start to incorporate it into their creative processes in some form.

Eventually, it will be impossible to separate music-based AI use, said Nathan Brackett in Rolling Stone. Because “behind closed doors,” AI tools are “creeping into the workflows of top producers, songwriters, and artists.” Mikey Shulman, CEO of AI music creation platform Suno, compares it to Ozempic: “Everybody is on it, and nobody wants to talk about it.” Most musicians aren’t using AI to generate entire songs from scratch. But producers will, for example, “make funk and soul samples out of AI, rather than license original music or hire musicians.” And that means “for every task that AI streamlines, there might be someone” who used to fill that role “who isn’t paid anymore.”

You vowed till death do us part at the altar — but does that have to extend to your money, too? Not necessarily.

Increasingly, many married couples are opting to keep their finances separate, at least to some extent. “Between 1996 and 2023, the share of married homeowners with financial assets who held at least one joint account, such as a checking or savings account, dropped from 85% to 77%,” said The Washington Post, citing Census Bureau data. Instead, “couples are opting for individual accounts alongside or instead of shared ones.”

There are definite pros to this approach. But there are also downsides, and couples should consider both before deciding to go financially solo.

Pro: provides greater financial independence and protection

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons couples decide to keep separate accounts is to maintain some sense of independence — and in the case of divorce, to have an easier path out. Having a separate account as an “emergency fund” allows you to “protect yourself if your relationship turns sour,” said U.S. Bank. It also ensures that you avoid a “common scenario where a partner legally drains a joint account without the other’s knowledge.”

Con: detracts from financial alignment and transparency

As the saying goes, teamwork makes the dream work, and merging finances can encourage that. “Instead of keeping a running tally of who spent what or operating their married lives like they are college roommates,” couples who share accounts “tend to focus on their collective needs, supporting one another without worrying about an immediate or equal payback,” said the Post. Plus, shared ownership ensures that both partners are aware of and have access to the full financial picture.

Pro: minimizes conflicts over spending

“Nobody wants to scold or nag, but it’s hard to hold your tongue when your significant other is a spendthrift — or its opposite, a penny-pincher,” said TIAA. While at least some level of financial alignment is integral to a marriage, separate accounts give both spouses a bit more breathing room when it comes to discretionary purchases.

Con: makes covering bills and expenses more complicated

When there is just one pool of money to tap for costs of living, it is straightforward to simply hit “pay.” But when the funds are divided between different accounts, it takes more figuring out. While certainly possible to navigate, couples with separate accounts will “need a system for splitting monthly bills, whether through regular transfers, payment apps or rotating responsibility,” said SoFi.

Pro: keeps separate debts separate

If you “wind up merging all your finances — credit cards, too — you could be on the hook for your partner’s spending habits,” said Bankrate. This may leave your hard-earned money on the line, not to mention it can impact your credit score, if your spouse falls behind on making debt payments. A separate account will shield you from that liability.

Con: makes money more difficult to access in an emergency

With a joint account, “by having each of you listed as an authorized account holder, you won’t need to jump through any hoops to access your money if the other is unavailable,” said Bankrate. However, when your accounts are all separate, “if one partner becomes incapacitated, the other may struggle to access needed funds,” said SoFi.

CBS needed a replacement after controversially canceling “The Late Show” hosted by Stephen Colbert and found a longstanding media name to fill the gap: Byron Allen, a billionaire industry mainstay whose “Comics Unleashed” panel comedy show ran in syndication from 2006 to 2016 and is now running in place of “The Late Show.” But unlike Colbert, Allen, who began his career in standup, has vowed to shy away from political humor.

Comedy roots

Allen, 65, was born in Detroit and eventually moved to Los Angeles with his mother. At a young age, he had an obsession with “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” and at 18 became “one of the youngest comedians to perform stand-up on Carson’s show, making his debut on May 17, 1979, a week before graduating high school,” said CNN.

He eventually transitioned from the stage to a behind-the-scenes role and soon “developed a business model that would define his career: producing reality shows and selling them directly to local stations,” said CNN. Allen founded his eponymous company, Allen Media Group, in 1993 and currently “owns over a dozen ABC, CBS and NBC network-affiliate broadcast television stations around the country, 10 24-hour HD television networks and multiple digital streaming platforms,” said USA Today. He also owns The Weather Channel and recently “acquired a ‘majority stake’ in BuzzFeed.”

‘I’m not trying to replace him’

When it was announced in July 2025 that Colbert‘s show would be ending, Allen originally “urged CBS to ‘not put on another show’ if it went through with canceling the cancellation,” instead offering to buy the block of time, said NBC News. Allen’s “Comics Unleashed” ran in syndication from 2006 to 2016 before being slotted in to take over “The Late Show.” Under his deal with CBS, Allen “leases the hour and sells the advertising inventory himself.”

In another departure, Allen’s “Comics Unleashed” focuses “strictly on comedy and roundtable storytelling with no political content,” said NJ.com. Colbert was known for his humor revolving around President Donald Trump (many feel his cancellation was politically motivated, an accusation CBS denies). “I’m not trying to replace Colbert. I don’t think anybody can replace Colbert. I think he’s phenomenal,” Allen said to The Guardian.

There is “nothing like it on TV right now where you have five comedians sitting around with one purpose: making people laugh,” Allen told The Guardian of his show. When Allen “first started doing the show, and I’ve had on over 1,000 comedians, I said, ‘No political humor, nothing racist, nothing sexist, nothing antisemitic, nothing homophobic, just be funny.’” Allen has also claimed that people are okay with not hearing political humor in late-night.

“Would you have interest to look at news that was recorded a month ago or two months ago? That news is long gone,” Allen said to The Guardian. “So why do you want to hear about the political news from eight weeks earlier?” Allen claims that “Comics Unleashed” is already making a profit for CBS (the network cited financial reasons for axing Colbert’s show). Despite the controversy, the late-night slot is an opportunity Allen has long wanted. “If they are looking for a show, my hand is already up,” Allen said in October 2025 to Variety. “Fifty years I have been waiting for this moment.”

The benefits of bird-watching are plenty — it’s relaxing, can offer a mental-health boost, gets you outside in the fresh air, teaches you about new types of species and helps you focus. Start in your backyard or local park, then consider these eight global hot spots, where opportunities to zero in on avian splendor are plentiful.

Cape Town, South Africa

The Cape sugarbird, Cape rockjumper, orange-breasted sunbird and bank cormorant are some of the endemic birds that draw nature lovers to Cape Town. The best place to do serious birding is Strandfontein Sewage Works, where visitors “may count more than 50 species on any given morning,” said Afar. Flamingos, African marsh harriers and Cape longclaws all gather in and around the ponds, and in the summer grey and purple herons arrive in droves.

Colombia

Nearly 2,000 avian species call Colombia’s mountains, forests and beaches home, making the country a “veritable paradise” for birders, said Forbes. Don’t overlook the cities, either; Cartagena is an “underrated gem for avitourism” and a great “jumping-off point” for birding adventures.

Ekoparque Luna Forest is “prime territory” for the chestnut-winged chachalaca, a species endemic to the Colombian Caribbean, and the tropical dry forest at Santuario de Flora y Fauna Los Colorados is home base for the scarlet macaw, Amazon kingfisher and rose-breasted grosbeak.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica’s rainforests offer varied bird-watching experiences. Quetzals dwell in the “ethereal cloud forests,” said Travel and Leisure, while red-capped manakins live in the lowland tropical rainforest.

A “great” destination for bird-watching is Carara National Park on the central Pacific coast, where tropical dry forests and humid rainforests meet. Birds from both environments, like scarlet macaws, toucans and herons, live here. On the Caribbean coast, discover “abundant wildlife” in Cahuita National Park. Visitors can walk a five-mile forest hiking trail and experience the chance to see kingfishers, hawks and green ibis.

Daintree Rainforest, Australia

More than half of Australia’s bird species live in Daintree Rainforest, and bird-watchers from “all over the world” come here for a “day, or even a week, of bird-spotting,” said Time Out. This is the oldest continually surviving rainforest on Earth — it’s estimated to be more than 180 million years old — and “wing-watchers” flock here to search for the “elusive” flightless Southern cassowary. There are more than a dozen endemics to keep an eye out for, including the pied monarch, Macleay’s honeyeater and Victoria’s riflebird.

Everglades National Park, Florida

Wading birds are “essential” residents of the Everglades, playing a vital role in Florida’s wetlands ecosystem, said Lonely Planet. Birders glide down the coastline in kayaks and canoes to watch “egrets, ibis and roseate spoonbills pick through the shallows for food,” and there are trails throughout the park offering views of birds like cormorants, warblers and nesting anhingas. One of the best times to visit is in mid-February, when swallow-tiled kites return from their winters in Central and South America.

Hokkaido, Japan

During winter, the bird-watching in Hokkaido is “spectacular,” said National Geographic Traveler. The “remarkable” red-crowned cranes can be found performing “elaborate mating dances against snowy landscapes,” while the Steller’s sea eagles dive into the chilly water for fish. The Blakiston’s fish owl is the rarest owl in Japan but often visits the Yoroushi onsen in the evening.

Manu National Park, Peru

What birds you see at Manu National Park depends on your elevation. When in the cloud forest, be on the lookout for the vibrant Andean cock-of-the-rock, quetzals, tanagers, horneros and parakeets.

Down in the lower parts of the park, you might spy the Amazon umbrellabird, or nesting nightjars and yellow-billed terns on the beaches along the Manu River. Go off the beaten path to “remote areas like the Huacarpay wetlands, home to nearly 60 resident species” like yellow-winged blackbirds and violetear hummingbirds, said Condé Nast Traveler.

Scottish Highlands

The “majestic” golden eagle, “elusive” capercaillie and “tiny” crested tit are some of the reasons why bird-watchers love the Scottish Highlands, said National Geographic Traveler. Spot ptarmigan, dotterel and snow bunting, “three high mountain specialists,” in Cairngorms National Park and Spey Valley, but prepare to put in some work — you will have to “trudge up mountains” and “search through pine forests to find them.” It’s worth it to spend time in the “spectacular” landscape, amid the “dense foliage,” and listen to the birdsong.

‘The steroid Olympics fell short of its own finishing line’

Anjana Ahuja at the Financial Times

The Enhanced Games in Las Vegas “were informally billed as the ‘steroid Olympics’” and the “edgy experiment was meant to shatter world records and force a rethink of what it means to be the strongest or fastest human on Earth,” says Anjana Ahuja. But the “thing that was most pumped up was the marketing.” The games were “performance enhancement as a kind of DEI initiative — and one that mostly served to make current ‘non-enhanced’ Olympians look more superhuman.”

Read more

‘The Mali crisis could have a dangerous spillover effect’

Mohamed El Hajj Mahmoud El Talib at Al Jazeera

It “has been almost nine months since rebel groups imposed a fuel blockade on Mali’s capital Bamako” and the “present crisis is compounded by the weakening of the Malian state following the 2021 coup and foreign intervention,” says Mohamed El Hajj Mahmoud El Talib. In the “absence of any serious effort to address it, instability could spill over across the whole Sahel region.” The “ongoing humanitarian crisis could trigger a major migration wave toward Europe and North America.”

Read more

‘What if some fears can’t be conquered?’

Katie Arnold-Ratliff at The Cut

When “undertaken with the help of a clinician,” exposure therapy’s “success rate is well-known to be high — estimated at up to 90%,” says Katie Arnold-Ratliff. But “‘success’ in this context means feeling a reduction in fear upon completion of the program, a definition that belies a difficult and underpublicized reality of ET: its positive effects frequently wane with time.” Though “few therapists lead with this truth, many patients chip away at their phobia for years, not days or weeks.”

Read more

‘There’s a simple reason why I’m sure AI won’t achieve consciousness’

Noah Giansiracusa at Slate

AI chatbots “provide a convincing illusion of consciousness, but we know they are just a sequence of lifeless math calculations,” says Noah Giansiracusa. These chatbots are “estimated to have trillions of parameters” but “they are mere formulas.” It is “safe to say that a math formula written on a sheet of paper is not a conscious entity.” There is “no consciousness to discover here when you break down what is inside the machine that is AI.”

Read more

Any path President Donald Trump takes to end the war with Iran is bound to generate a lot of dissatisfaction among his GOP supporters and advisers. Hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continue to “press for more aggressive U.S. military action,” Daniel R. DePetris said at the Los Angeles Times, and Republicans “consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.” But Trump’s in-house political strategists want a quick end to the unpopular war to “minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party” in November’s midterm elections. Trump clearly wants the deal that he keeps promising to the U.S. public, yet accomplishing that may put him at odds with Republicans who “would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.”

‘A bad option and a worse one’

The president “seems conflicted,” said DePetris. He’s “fed up with the current situation” but also “afraid of escalation,” said Danny Citrinowicz, of The Atlantic Council, to The New Yorker. The president is “fed up with the current situation,” but he is also “afraid of escalation,” the Atlantic Council’s Danny Citrinowicz said in an interview with The New Yorker. Escalation probably will not work “because the Iranians are not going to capitulate.” The other option to end the war, then, is a deal that provides both money and sanctions relief to the Islamic regime in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s choices are “between a bad option and a worse one.”

“Will Trump bail out Iran’s regime?” The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. Inflation pressures at home are likely behind the president’s desire to “reopen the Strait even on Iran’s terms.” But a “bad deal would leave him worse off politically” even if domestic prices recede. Iran’s regime was beset by domestic crises that the war has exacerbated. A “half victory” by Iran now “would hurt America’s standing — and Mr. Trump’s.”

The issue is not Trump “terminating the conflict too soon,” Jacob Heilbrunn said at The Spectator. It is “that he began it in the first place.” The war is undermining both his presidency and U.S. military power, and the idea that escalation would result in Iran’s surrender “defies credulity.” The ugly truth illustrated by the Hormuz closure is that Trump “does not hold the cards.”

‘Leaving core issues unsolved’

Trump is looking to get a ceasefire deal now and “deal with the toughest problems later,” said The New York Times. He took the same approach in Gaza, where he brokered a truce last year. That effort ended the fighting but left issues of Hamas’ future and the rebuilding of Gaza to be figured out at a later date. So far that has not happened. Such an approach can be a way for Trump to “claim victory while leaving the core issues unsolved.”

“Doubling down” on the war remains a possibility, Ravi Agrawal said at Foreign Policy. But that would come with “uncertain benefits” and “much more potential pain.” We may soon find out one way or another, as the U.S. on Monday conducted strikes on Iranian positions, a sign the temporary truce is faltering.

What happened

President Donald Trump on Tuesday spent more than three hours at Walter Reed Medical Center for his fourth publicly disclosed medical exam since returning to office last year. The White House did not release any details of the exam, but “everything checked out PERFECTLY,” Trump, who turns 80 next month, said on social media.

Who said what

Trump’s unusually frequent exams have put his health “under renewed public scrutiny after he has worked to dismiss concerns over his age and stamina,” The Associated Press said. He “frequently casts himself as more energetic and fitter than Joe Biden,” who left office at age 82 after “facing questions about his fitness for the job,” Reuters said.

Trump’s “health and fitness have been central to his political identity,” but as an “aging president, he now receives some of the same questions that dogged Biden — namely, whether he is mentally and physically fit” enough, The Washington Post said. “Independent doctors” have called the White House’s explanations for Trump’s bruised hands, neck rash, swollen legs and “occasional sleepiness” at meetings “insufficient.”

What next?

It was “not immediately clear whether the White House would release details” from Trump’s clinical exam to “support his claim” of good health, The New York Times said.

What happened

Republican redistricting efforts in Alabama and South Carolina were blocked Tuesday, stalling President Donald Trump’s mid-decade gerrymandering campaign. South Carolina’s GOP-led state Senate thwarted a plan to cancel an ongoing primary and swap in a new map that would erase the state’s lone Democratic and majority Black district. In Alabama, a panel of federal judges temporarily blocked the state GOP’s proposed map, saying it was “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”

Who said what

The 12 South Carolina GOP senators who “effectively killed” the Trump-backed gerrymander cited “numerous” concerns, from practical and political to procedural, said The Post and Courier. “Neither my conscience nor my common sense is going to let me stop an election that’s already underway,” state Sen. Richard Cash (R) said before the vote. The “rebuke from fellow Republicans came as a shock to Trump’s political operation,” Politico said. But “even without the extra seat” or two, Republicans “have an overall edge in the redistricting war.”

What next?

In Alabama, the three-judge panel, which includes two Trump appointees, said the state had to use a court-ordered 2024 map that includes two substantially Black districts. Alabama said it would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court.

What happened

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton won Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary, unseating Sen. John Cornyn despite being outspent by about $80 million. Boosted by an “eleventh-hour endorsement” from President Donald Trump, Paxton’s 64% to 36% defeat of “one of the most successful politicians in Texas GOP history” was a “political earthquake” that “will reverberate nationally,” The Texas Tribune said. Senate Republicans and political analysts believe Paxton’s victory gives the Democratic candidate, state Rep. James Talarico, a fighting chance to win in November.

In notable Texas Democratic primaries Tuesday, former Rep. Colin Allred unseated Rep. Julie Johnson, newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee beat 11-term Rep. Al Green in a newly combined Houston-area district, and former sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia defeated sex therapist Maureen Galindo, a controversial candidate funded by a mysterious GOP-backed super PAC.

Who said what

Republicans just nominated “the most corrupt politician in America,” Talarico said Tuesday night, in his first ad of the general election. Paxton is “known for his polarizing style, ethical travails and lousy political judgment,” but his “fealty and bombast” won over Trump, The Wall Street Journal said in an op-ed. Republicans can now “spend $100 million or more trying to salvage the seat and keep their Senate majority.” Minutes after the race was called, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifted its Texas Senate forecast from “likely” to “lean” Republican.

What next?

Paxton has faced “allegations of corruption, financial malfeasance and infidelity,” The Washington Post said, but he “still stands a decent chance of winning” in solidly red Texas.

This week’s question: The discovery of a 60,000-year-old Neanderthal molar with a circular hole in it—possibly made by a drill-like stone tool—has led researchers to conclude that our ancient cousins practiced a primitive form of dentistry. If a researcher specializing in Stone Age tooth care were to open a dental clinic in the U.S., what should the business be named?

How to enter: Submissions should be emailed to contest@theweek.com. Please include your name, address, and daytime telephone number for verification; this week, please type “Dated dentistry” in the subject line. Entries are due by noon, Eastern Time, Tuesday, June 2. Winners will appear on the Puzzle Page of the June 12 issue and at theweek.com/contest on June 5. In the case of identical or similar entries, the first one received gets credit. All entries become property of The Week.

The winner gets a one-year subscription to The Week.

Click or tap here to see the winner of last week's contest: Waymo woes

Iran has signalled that any peace deal must include an end to Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. But it’s unclear if the US could get Israel to agree to that, even if it wanted to.

Despite last month’s ceasefire, Israel has continued to pound Lebanon with airstrikes, killing at least 608 people, according to the World Health Organization. Yesterday, in response to a Hezbollah attack on its military posts, Israel launched one of its most intense waves of bombings, saying it had hit more than 100 Hezbollah targets. “I have ordered an even greater acceleration of our operations,” Benjamin Netanyahu said. “We will intensify our blows, increase our firepower, and we will crush them.”

What did the commentators say?

“Lebanon is in danger of becoming an overlooked but increasingly deadly sideshow”, as both Israel and Hezbollah violate the ceasefire, said Tom Kington in The Times. Israeli troops are occupying swathes of southern Lebanon, and won’t withdraw unless Hezbollah disarms. But the Iran-backed group says it won’t stop attacking Israeli positions until Israel withdraws. “The result has been a stand-off.”

Hezbollah is “waiting for a cue from Iran, which in turn depends on how Iran’s talks with the US go”, Michael Young, of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, told The Times. “If Iran emerges stronger from its clash with the US, Hezbollah will feel reinvigorated.” They will “be able to say they resisted and claim victory”. Meanwhile, Israel will be trying “to torpedo any deal”.

Washington is “pressuring” Lebanon’s leaders to disarm Hezbollah or else “face more Gaza-style destruction”, said Rami G. Khouri, a policy analyst at the American University of Beirut, in Al Jazeera. It has also “tied financial support” for the country’s reconstruction to “Beirut’s compliance with US-Israeli terms”. The Lebanese government faces “a disgruntled, deeply impoverished population, exasperated by relentless Israeli attacks”.

April’s ceasefire agreement heralded “weakened US-Israeli positions in the region”, as well as dealing “deep political blows” to Netanyahu and gifting “new diplomatic leverage” to Iran and Hezbollah. Having survived their “existential” battles and now pressing for permanent ceasefires, they could “weaken Israeli postures and help reshape Lebanon’s internal dynamics”.

“But far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition are pushing him to challenge” Donald Trump on the “ceasefire with Hezbollah”, said The Guardian’s chief Middle East correspondent, Emma Graham-Harrison. “It is time for the prime minister to bang on Trump’s table and inform him that we are returning to war in Lebanon,” said Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, on social media. “There is an urgent need to put an end to the threat posed by Hezbollah’s explosive drones,” the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, posted on Telegram. Hezbollah has “ignored repeated requests to stop firing at Israel”, a US official told Reuters. Israel will never “​passively absorb attacks on its forces and civilians”.

But Tehran won’t accept such attacks on its proxy, either, Danny Citrinowicz, a Middle East expert at the Atlantic Council, told The New Yorker. Lebanon is of “real strategic importance” to Iran; Hezbollah is “a vital element” of its “so-called Axis of Resistance”. So Trump “has a mountain to climb”. If he wants an agreement with Iran, he will have to “force Netanyahu’s hand on Lebanon”.

What next?

On Friday, delegations from Israel and Lebanon will meet for direct talks in the US, in preparation for further negotiations on 2 and 3 June.

The shaky US-Iran ceasefire, meanwhile, is under increasing strain: Iran has said US strikes near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday were a “gross violation”, and validated its “deep suspicion”. The US said its attacks were “defensive”.

But “even if Lebanon is part of a US-Iran peace deal, the Lebanese people will be wary”, said Kington in The Times. After all, April’s Pakistan-brokered ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran, supposedly included Lebanon – but Israel “denied this was the case and launched 100 attacks in a few minutes”.

Nobody knows how the phrase “Vedi Napoli e mori” (See Naples and die) came into being. The sentiment that once you have seen the beauties of Naples there is no need to go on is most commonly ascribed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe on his grand tour of Italy in the 1780s. Goethe and I have little in common – just ask my GCSE German teacher – but it is a feeling that is easy to share. Indeed my first time in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius was much like the volcano itself: beguiling and beautiful but filled with noise, theatre and barely contained energy.

It is all the more surprising, then, that the most impressive hotel on the Naples waterfront achieves its effect not through a crescendo of Neapolitan drama and excess but through piano, or restraint. ROMEO Napoli is a hotel that exudes class, almost effortlessly, and in a city that is so turned up to 11, that quality alone is something of a luxury.

Why stay here?

The building has a history worthy of its surroundings. Once the headquarters of Achille Lauro’s legendary shipping fleet, the palazzo was entrusted to the late Pritzker prize-winning Japanese architect Kenzō Tange for a transformation that is stark and yet incorporates so much of what has gone before.

The result is a double skin of glass and steel rendered in an aquamarine shimmer, its gently undulating curves calling to mind the prow of a great vessel preparing to cast off. It is striking in the way that all great Italian suits are striking, in that you can’t quite take your eyes off it, but you’d struggle to explain why. Against the backdrop of Naples’ Unesco-listed historic centre, it somehow manages to stand entirely apart while remaining very much of its place.

Inside, the philosophy is one of “essentiality”, something I took to mean that while some of the art and decor could feel over the top, it instead feels perfectly appointed. Black marble floors and Macassar ebony flow through communal spaces and into the 77 rooms and suites, each a tightly composed study in materiality. All the mod-cons of the highest end hotels are here, while the bed has a comfort level that is usually reserved only for your own one at home.

The mostly monochromatic palette, punctuated with flashes of blood red and cobalt, lends the whole place a cinematic quality, like something from a Paolo Sorrentino film, rather than your standard five-star interior. The Gulf of Naples, visible from most rooms, remains the star attraction and the “essentiality” of the interior decor means that there is nothing too in-your-face to compete for your attention.

The art collection deserves a mention, too, as it is not art for the sake of art. The founder, Alfredo Romeo, is himself a serious collector, and the works here – ranging from 17th-century paintings to Samurai armour, from Mario Schifano’s pop-inflected take on Vesuvius to Andy Warhol’s typically flat, iconic treatment of the same volcano – feel genuinely chosen rather than acquired.

Mark Kostabi, the American artist whose stylised, mannequin-like figures explore themes of isolation and alienation in the age of technology, is another recurring presence. His pieces appearing in the rooms as well as the public spaces give an unsettling elegance. Marc Chagall’s dreamlike figurative work brings a note of European modernism to the mix, while a lenticular piece by Neapolitan artist Francesco Clemente shifts and transforms as you move past it. Lemons, sheep, Vesuvius – the iconography of the area flickers in and out of focus like a half-remembered memory. It is a fitting tribute to a city that always shows you something different.

Eating and drinking

That Alain Ducasse chose Naples for his first Italian restaurant is testament to the history, quality and excitement that eating in the city can bring. The food offering at the ROMEO is the perfect example of all three. Il Ristorante Alain Ducasse Napoli, on the ninth floor with panoramic views across the Gulf, has already been awarded its first Michelin star. It would be no surprise if more were on the way.

On Sundays and Mondays, when the main restaurant rests, the kitchen migrates up to La Terrazza, where lunch and dinner are served against a view that, well, it is a cliché, but it took my breath away. As we were there on a Monday we were treated to a smorgasbord of delights from the menu, once we’d caught our breath of course. It’s rare that a salad steals the show, but the caprese was quite simply perfect – the tomatoes in this part of the world are worth travelling for.

While the two pastas were divine, a pomodoro sauce and a white wine and clam number, it was in fact the ceviche and octopus courses that have lived long in the memory.

Despite to this day being a thriving port city and with so many people so close to the sea, Naples has plenty of substandard fish restaurants. But at ROMEO the simplicity of cooking is a key reason behind its excellence. Executive chef Alessandro Lucassino’s kitchen operates on the principle of letting the exceptional Mediterranean produce speak for itself. This is shown in the delectable nature of their fish and seafood dishes.

Lemons are the other food staple that are just better in Naples than pretty much anywhere else on the planet and we ended our meal with a lemon tart that was truly out of this world. There’s an ease and warmth in which the food is served that also speaks to the quality of the dining experience. Too often high-end places with this sort of menu can feel stuffy, but the ROMEO has a quality offering that comes with an air of relaxed confidence, with is both instantly appealing and relaxing in equal measure.

Breakfast, served in the same space, is another Ducasse production and considerably above what most hotels consider sufficient. For something more casual, Il Bar, a sleek all-day space with an interesting past life as Naples’ first fusion restaurant, offers seasonal plates at any hour.

Things to do

Few hotel spas manage to be impressive in scale and genuinely immersive in atmosphere at the same time. LA SPA by Sisley Paris, occupying more than 1,000 square metres within what was historically the city’s salt customs office, manages both with considerable style.

Descending into it feels like entering an entirely different world. In fact, if you’ve ever wondered what it might feel like to be a very well-pampered astronaut, the spa has the answer. There is a salt cave, an infrared sauna and a snow room that delivers exactly the kind of bracing shock to the system that you didn’t know you needed. Three plunge pools are backed by futuristic projections of water scenes, while most remarkable of all are the circular “phyto-aromatic” cabins. They are neon-lit pods in which you lie back, breathe in essential oils and watch scenes from the natural world play out above you.

The treatments themselves are everything you would expect from a brand such as Sisley. I felt rejuvenated, revitalised and really could have spent my whole week down there. But there were more delights above ground with the two pools, and the Krug Champagne terrace on the rooftop, offering a different but no less necessary kind of therapy. On a clear day, the 120-square-metre infinity pool appears to dissolve into the Gulf itself, with the islands of Ischia and Capri floating on the horizon.

The verdict

Naples, as Goethe well knew, is one of those cities that stays with you long after you leave. ROMEO Napoli, rather than fighting that feeling, channels it into something altogether more considered.

A special mention too must go to the staff who all went above and beyond to ensure our stay was such a delight. It’s rare to see staff members engaged in such convivial conversations with so many of the guests but that seems to be the ROMEO way.

From the architecture and the art to the dining and the view, no trip to the ROMEO is wasted, while the spa, the pools and that terrace ensure that “see Naples and die” feels, for the duration of your stay at least, like a very long way off indeed.

Rooms from approximately €514 per night. Il Ristorante Alain Ducasse Napoli is open Tuesday to Saturday for dinner; reservations are essential. Daily spa access is included for hotel guests. theromeocollection.com

Ferrari’s first foray into electric vehicles has sparked an intense backlash from fans and investors, with shares falling sharply after the unveiling of its new battery-powered Luce.

Created in collaboration with former Apple chief designer Jony Ive, the car’s futuristic shell-like form, silent engine and £475,000 price tag were always going to be “controversial”, said Politico. But Luca di Montezemolo, Ferrari’s former chairman, spoke for many “purists in Italy” when he said it “risks destroying the myth” of the legendary cars and should be stripped of the company’s prancing horse logo.

‘Polarising’

Montezemolo was far from alone in his assessment.

“The Luce does not look like a Ferrari. It looks like the concept for a Honda Hydrogen vehicle from 2002,” said Luke Plunkett on Aftermath. “It looks like one of the ‘this is what the future will look like from the 90s’ cars from ‘Demolition Man’, only worse.” It looks like “anything but a Ferrari”.

It has even managed to unite Italy’s fractious politics. Far-right transport minister Matteo Salvini slammed it on X, while centrist opposition politician Carlo Calenda called it an “aesthetic and technological insult to anyone who loves Ferrari”.

Even Ferrari’s chief design officer, Flavio Manzoni, admitted that the design was “polarising”, but he’s confident fans will embrace the new car with time.

Investors, however, were not so sure. Ferrari shares fell nearly 8% in Milan on Tuesday, amid fears the Luce launch “could become a repeat of Jaguar Land Rover’s controversial failed rebrand” in 2024. That was when the luxury British carmaker “tried to shift the marque away from its traditional ‘Jag man’ image towards ultra-wealthy customers”, said The Telegraph.

‘Energy transition challenge’

The Luce has had a “rather long gestation period”, with a Ferrari EV in the works for “a few years” before development officially started in 2021, said Car magazine. At the time, “EVs were riding high and increasing in popularity in the premium, sport and luxury space” but “the world slightly reassessed that overly positive attitude to EVs not long after and so did Ferrari”.

Since then, mass-production brands like Ford, GM, Honda and Volvo have “all retreated from their EV initiatives in one way or another as consumer demand plummets, profit falls and policy makers deprioritise moving away from traditional gas power”, said Forbes.

“Luxury and performance brands have done the same”, with Lamborghini scrapping its first planned EV, Porsche opting for hybrid and McLaren steering clear entirely.

“Underscoring the energy transition challenge for luxury carmakers”, the “initial negative reaction to Ferrari’s new model was not surprising”, said the Financial Times. But according to analysts, “the key challenge for the company was to fill the order book with the highly specific clients it had targeted for the Luce”.

As far as the Italian brand’s executives are concerned, “whether most current Ferrari customers think the Luce is cool is irrelevant,” said Scott Sherwood, an independent analyst of luxury carmakers. “If it tested well enough with the tech crowd to fill the order book, that’s all they are concerned with.”

The Court of Appeal is to review the sentences given to three teenage boys convicted of the rape of two girls in Hampshire. The judge’s original decision had prompted a public outcry and a rare intervention from the prime minister.

The boys, two of whom were 15 and one 14 at the time of sentencing, were given youth rehabilitation orders and walked free from court despite having 10 rape convictions between them. The judge said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and support their reintegration into society.

But former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the sentences were “unduly lenient” while Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, said “there are questions about the sentence”. The case has highlighted the discretionary power the judiciary holds.

How much leeway do judges have?

Legislation sets maximum, and sometimes minimum, sentences for criminal offences based on the type, seriousness and circumstances of the crime. “But the law is written in a way that gives judges and magistrates considerable discretion when it comes to sentencing,” said the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Sentencing guidelines set by the Council help identify what type and length of sentence should be imposed to make sure a consistent approach is taken across all courts and crimes.

By law, judges and magistrates must sentence according to the guidelines, “unless it would be unjust to do so”, said the Council. However, they have the “discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines if they think it would be in the interest of justice to do so, given all the circumstances of a particular case”.

When deciding on a sentence, the judge or magistrate will consider things like “your age, if you have a criminal record, if you pleaded guilty or not guilty”, said Gov.uk. While they must follow sentencing guidelines, “they may also look at decisions made by the Court of Appeal in previous cases – this is called ‘case law’”.

“Judges never publicly comment on cases they oversee because to do so would potentially undermine the words they have used in court,” said the BBC, “but they always have to show in court the reasons why they have sentenced a defendant the way they did”.

How is it different for young offenders?

“While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point,” said the Sentencing Council, when sentencing children or those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt, the approach should be “individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence focused”.

There is an emphasis on rehabilitation “where possible”. The court should also “consider the effect the sentence is likely to have on the child or young person (both positive and negative) as well as any underlying factors contributing to the offending behaviour”.

Both domestic and international laws dictate that a custodial sentence should always be a “measure of last resort” for children and young people. Statute provides that a custodial sentence “may only be imposed when the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate”.

Can a sentence be reconsidered?

The unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any member of the public to refer a sentence to the attorney general. The government’s top legal adviser then asks prosecutors to “advise whether it is in line with expectations, taking into account the discretion that judges have, or completely at odds with what would have happened in comparable cases”, said the BBC.

If the attorney general decides the sentence was “out of line, he will refer it to the Court of Appeal where three senior judges will look at what happened in a public hearing and rule on whether the sentence was right or unduly lenient”.

The right to appeal against a sentence “remains restricted to serious crimes tried in the crown court, such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, stalking and most child sexual abuse offences”, excluding “hundreds of other offences, including some sexual crimes, causing death by careless driving and burglary”, said The Guardian.

The law was changed in April to extend the 28-day limit to submit a formal request for a review after an offender is sentenced to six months. It followed a campaign by relatives of murder victims who argued they were not aware of the scheme or had missed the deadline.

Cuba is rapidly growing its solar infrastructure due to the U.S. oil blockade. With the help of China, solar farms have popped up all over the country. But renewable energy access is unequal across the island, and Cuba still has a long way to go before it can survive without oil.

Looking to the skies

Cuba’s “energy crisis is chronic,” and the United States’ blocked fuel shipments have “pushed an already fragile system to the brink,” said El País. The country, which ran out of oil in the middle of May, has been experiencing 24- to 30-hour-long blackouts regularly. In the last four months, “only a single oil tanker has reached Cuban ports, that of the Russian Federation,” said Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, Cuba’s representative to Belgium and the European Union, to Jacobin. Cuba “requires, at a minimum, eight tankers per month simply to sustain the basic functioning of the country.” The situation is “critical, harsh” and “approaching the contours of a humanitarian emergency.”

But where one door closes, another opens. Cuba is “currently pulling off one of the fastest solar revolutions on the planet, with help from China,” said CNN. “Imports of Chinese solar panels and batteries have soared over the past year.”

Chinese exports of solar equipment to Cuba “skyrocketed from about $5 million in 2023 to $117 million in 2025 and show no sign of stopping,” said The Washington Post. Beijing “pledged last year to help Cuba build more than 92 solar parks by 2028, and more than half of these projects have come online.” Along with providing materials, Chinese companies have also been “facilitating installation” and “working directly in Cuba to build solar farms.”

Because of the U.S. blockade and Cuba’s longstanding energy crisis, the Cuban government announced plans to move completely to renewable energy by 2050. The “installation of 52 solar photovoltaic parks has been completed, contributing more than 1,000 MWp and generating, at peak output, 38% of the energy consumed during daylight hours,” said Granma, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party. Renewable energy “now accounts for some 10% of the island’s electricity, up from 3.6% in 2024,” said The Associated Press. However, “distribution remains limited, and few Cubans can afford such a system.”

Far to go

While solar power and renewable energy in general have ramped up in Cuba, it is “highly unlikely that, considering their current situation today, Cuba could achieve the goal of 100% renewables by the year 2050,” said Jorge Piñon, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute, to NBC News. The “surge may be rapid, but solar power is not yet available at scale,” said CNN. Cuba’s solar parks are “small and scattered.” And solar power is “only generated when the sun shines, meaning it cannot meet peak evening demand.”

To make solar power work at all hours, batteries would be necessary. But much of the country does not have the necessary infrastructure. “You are talking about a major overhaul of a system that is old, is broken, is tired,” said Piñon to CNN. This overhaul is not cheap, and historically, the country’s energy problems have “disproportionately affected rural areas and provincial hubs,” said Bloomberg. Havana, the “wealthiest part of the island, would see greater uptake of solar panels,” as “battery systems that charge while the electric grid is on, to then power appliances when it’s not, are also commonly used in the capital.”

Nearly six years to the day after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked racial protests across the United States, something similar is happening across the pond. The death of a Congolese man in Dublin led people throughout the Irish capital to take to the streets, in what many are calling the country’s own George Floyd-like reckoning.

What happened?

The protests began over an incident on May 15, when Yves Sakila was detained by “several security guards who suspected him of shoplifting at Arnotts, Ireland’s oldest and largest department store, in the heart of Dublin” after he “allegedly stole a bottle of perfume,” said The Associated Press. Sakila, a 35-year-old native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was seen on video “struggling and crying out in distress as he was held down by several men for nearly five minutes.”

At least two of the guards “held his face to the ground and at one point one of ​them appeared to kneel on his head or neck for a few seconds,” said Reuters. Police eventually arrived on scene, and Sakila was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Sakila’s death was seen by many as reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd, who died in 2020 “after being arrested by police outside a shop in Minnesota, prompting widespread protests under the Black Lives Matter banner,” said The Times.

How has Ireland reacted?

The incident has caused anger and protests among many in Ireland, with demonstrators calling for racial justice. Following Sakila’s death, at least “several hundred people attended a rally” in Dublin organized by Black Coalition Ireland, said The Irish Times. The protesters are demanding “proper transparent investigation into his death,” Black Coalition Ireland spokeswoman Cllr Yemi Adenuga told The Irish Times, as well as “racial training for all gardaí,” referring to Ireland’s national police force.

The protesters additionally called for an “end to the ‘demonizing rhetoric’ used by politicians or would-be politicians against ethnic communities and equal treatment for all communities, not just on paper but in practice,” said The Irish Times. The Democratic Republic of the Congo “remains steadfastly committed to establishing the full truth” of Sakila’s death, the country’s foreign affairs ministry said in a translated post on X. Irish government officials are also getting involved, with Ebun Joseph, Ireland’s Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial Equality, calling for an investigation.

The footage of Sakila’s death has “caused profound distress, fear and outrage across many communities, particularly among black and minority ethnic communities who already experience heightened anxiety regarding racial profiling, excessive force, unequal treatment and over-policing in public spaces,” Joseph said in a statement, per Irish broadcaster RTÉ. His death raises “urgent and serious questions which require comprehensive examination.” Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the country’s prime minister, has also called for an investigation.

But the incident will also likely cause tensions to grow in a country that “continues to grapple with increasing political tension around immigration, following anti-immigrant protests and riots that erupted in Dublin in 2023,” said The Grio. Many are continuing to push for changes. “We call this a George Floyd moment,” David ​Kaliba, a former high school classmate of Sakila, said to Reuters. “I can’t believe ​it happened in America in 2020 and happened in Ireland in 2026.”

What started as online satire has spiralled into a mass movement for India’s disaffected youth.

The parody Cockroach Janta Party launched earlier this month and quickly amassed more than 22 million followers on Instagram – more than twice that of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the world’s largest political party.

Rotten places

The Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, was created by Abhijeet Dipke, a public relations student at Boston University in the US. The 30-year-old launched the CJP via social media accounts and a website, inspired by comments from India’s Chief Justice Surya Kant, in which he compared unemployed young people to cockroaches.

While Kant later clarified his remarks, saying they only referred to some people acquiring fraudulent degrees, his comments drew “considerable ire”, said Al Jazeera, “mainly from Gen Z internet users, as they battle large-scale unemployment, inflation and bitter religious divides” following 12 years of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government.

“Those in power think citizens are cockroaches and parasites,” Dipke told the news site. “They should know that cockroaches breed in rotten places. That’s what India is today.”

With a cockroach as its symbol, the CJP has exploded across social media fed by “memes and short videos mocking corruption, joblessness and political dysfunction” that turned “absurdist humour into protest”, said The Associated Press. One million people have signed up to join the movement in the past week with “its tongue-in-cheek membership criteria” including “being unemployed, lazy, chronically online and capable of ranting professionally”.

“I don’t expect CJP to become a functioning political party, but its rapid growth sends a message to the ruling party that many, especially the youth, are unhappy with corruption and the economy”, 29-year-old digital marketer Oindrila Mohinta told The Telegraph India.

Neither side listening

After the CJP’s X account was blocked as a result of a “legal demand”, supporters flooded social media with claims the Indian government was behind the suspension, suggesting the movement had “rattled” the “establishment”, said The Times of India. Dipke has accused the government of trying to take down the movement’s official website, and claimed his personal Instagram account had also been hacked.

However, “the opposition should be careful before celebrating the CJP as a ready-made, anti-BJP youth wave”, said Rasheed Kidwai for NDTV. “Gen Z’s irritation with the ruling establishment is real” but “it does not automatically convert into faith in the opposition”.

“The viral success of the Cockroach Janata Party should not be seen only as a dissent against the ruling party but also a mirror to the opposition,” poll strategist Naresh Arora wrote on X. “India’s Gen Z youth feel neither side is listening to them.”

The CJP as an entity “may disappear within months”, said Vivek Surendran in The Indian Express. “Internet movements often burn intensely and collapse without consequence”. However, the message to the political establishment is that “inspirational” messaging is no longer cutting through with cynical younger voters: “what large sections of young Indians want is recognition of their exhaustion”.

Target is back on target. The big-box retailer known for affordable style has returned to its roots, sparking a turnaround after a multiyear slump.

The company’s first quarter sales were its “best results in four years,” said CNN. That’s the product of CEO Michael Fiddelke’s move to “win back shoppers with new, buzzy brands” such as Pokémon and Parke. Fiddelke took over earlier this year after a “series of strategy mistakes,” including cutting DEI programs and Pride displays, which sparked boycotts by the company’s largely liberal customer base. But now, Target’s “comeback strategy is working.”

‘Style and design’

Target is attempting to get back to what “historically made the chain distinctive,” said Axios. The company does best when it’s “truly leading with style and design at an incredible value,” said Fiddelke to reporters. Those elements help distinguish the retailer from rivals like Walmart and Amazon and are being applied not just to the products on Target’s shelves but also to “store design, remodels and even shopping carts,” said Axios. Style must be at the “center of how we think about the business,” said Fiddelke.

The company is also “executing its largest grocery transition” in more than 10 years, said Retail Touch Points. Target added 3,000 new food items to its grocery aisles during the first quarter of 2026, as well as 1,500 new health and wellness items. Customers are “actively seeking newness,” Chief Merchandising Officer Cara Sylvester said to reporters. Such changes helped, but so did consumers who seemed ready to spend during the early part of the year. Bigger-than-normal tax returns “were a source of upside to consumer spending,” said Chief Financial Officer Jim Lee.

Target’s quarterly report comes as analysts are watching to see if “surging gasoline prices due to the Iran war” are leading to consumer cutbacks, said The Associated Press. The cutbacks are also a sign of how well the company can weather becoming a “flashpoint” in culture wars. But boycotts and politics have “never been the main issue” behind the company’s slump, GlobalData Retail’s Neil Saunders said to the AP. Instead, customers felt Target was “failing on execution,” said the outlet.

‘We want to be careful’

The turnaround “may not be as smooth as the latest results imply,” said MarketWatch. Target must pivot from halting the slump to sustaining “full-scale growth,” said Brian Mulberry, of Zacks Investment Management, to the outlet. Though the company has upgraded its sales expectations for 2026, Fiddelke acknowledges the headwinds as consumers pull back from spending. “We want to be careful not to get out over our skis,” he said to reporters.

Next up are store revamps. Target and other big retailers are “pouring billions of dollars back into their stores” to lure customers even as online sales continue to occupy a bigger share of consumer spending, said The New York Times. Remodeling brick-and-mortar stores, Fiddelke told the outlet, is part of the strategy for “elevating the Target experience.”

If you are living on a tight budget, going on vacation may seem totally out of reach. But you may just need to adjust your sense of scale. Rather than taking a week or more off work and trying to cover lodging, food and everything else for that entire time, consider stepping away for just a few days instead.

Known as a microvacation, such smaller-scale trips can be easier both logistically and financially — and they can still be plenty of fun. “One in five Gen Zers (21%) plan to take shorter trips in 2026 than in past years,” with one of the top reasons — cited by 37% of survey respondents — being the “spontaneity,” said Bank of America’s 2026 Summer Travel Outlook, per Investopedia.

What is a microvacation (or microcation)?

The defining feature of a microvacation, also referred to as a microcation, is its length. A microvacation “usually lasts one to four days,” said Kiplinger, and it “doesn’t require long flights, complicated itineraries or a big chunk of time off work.”

Often, a microvacation does not entail traveling to a far-flung location but rather sticking closer to home, with many opting for somewhere just a short drive away, given the condensed timeframe. But some travelers view the expedited timeline as a way to tick off places on their bucket list that much faster — in essence, they are “questioning the idea of saving all pleasure for one annual holiday, instead using shorter breaks to see more of the world in manageable, repeatable doses,” said the BBC.

Why are people opting for shorter trips instead?

For starters, “compared with weeklong vacations, microvacations can be cheaper, fit into a work schedule more easily and are simpler to plan,” said Investopedia. Beyond that, “some are inspired by the idea of stretching limited paid time off; others look to game loyalty points for quick trips to, say, Barcelona and London; and some are simply drawn to the challenge,” said The New York Times, noting the trend of “microvacationers posting about their itineraries on social media.”

While you may wonder how effectively you can really experience a place in just a handful of days, some microcation proponents argue the opposite. With fewer days, “each day is more impactful — you’re really in the moment, and you have more [money] to spend on what matters,” said microvacationer Sarah Pardi to the BBC.

How can you start planning a microcation?

When planning a microvacation, one of the best places to start is by determining why you want to take one. Consider “what you actually need right now: rest, connection, fun or simply a change of scenery,” said Kiplinger.

With that in mind, you can start preparing — but make sure not to get carried away. Microvacationers should “aim to anchor their trips to a single experience,” ensuring you aren’t trying to “cover too much ground in the limited time you have” and that you “don’t overplan,” said Laurel Greatrix, the chief communications officer for Tripadvisor Group, to the Times. After all, you do not want to spend a large chunk of your short time away in transit from one place to the next.

The New York Times has accused Israeli prison guards and soldiers of systematic sexual abuse of Palestinians, said Rachel O’Donoghue in National Review—but its “shocking” allegations aren’t credible. In a report two weeks ago, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof purported to document widespread rape of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli jailers, which he claims is condoned by the Israeli government. His describes men raped with batons and carrots and the sexual abuse of children, and “adds a grotesque flourish:” the rape of prisoners by dogs trained for that purpose. This shoddy report relies on “dubious sourcing.” Most of the 14 victims cited aren’t named; the two he does name have changed the stories they’ve told. Kristof repeatedly cites claims by a Geneva-based human rights group with ties to Hamas and “a history of promoting inflammatory and unfounded allegations against Israel.” Given how canine biology works, the dog-rape claim “doesn’t pass the most basic smell test,” said Douglas Murray in the New York Post. So why would the Times print it, except to portray Israelis as “absolute monsters”?

This “backlash” to the ugly truth is utterly predictable, said Yuli Novak in The Guardian. Pro-Israel voices assailed the Times, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to sue over the “blood libel.” But Kristof’s report is hardly unique: The torture and rape of Palestinians has long been reported by dozens of former detainees and documented by my own Israeli human rights group. As with its brutal policies in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel’s detention system is built “on the denial of Palestinian humanity.” In assessing the credibility of Kristof’s report, said Andrew Sullivan in his Substack newsletter, it’s important to remember the horrors Americans inflicted at Abu Ghraib—including using dogs to sexually humiliate naked Iraqis. When enemies come to see each other as subhuman, “the darkness is deep.”

After Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of Israelis, it was the Palestinians and their defenders who adamantly denied horrific reports of rape and sexual torture, said Emily Tamkin in The Forward. A new investigation has documented that Hamas’ sexual assault of Israelis was “widespread.” Why do “we automatically believe that yes, this side carries out sexual violence, but no, that side doesn’t?” When you dismiss any allegations that go “against the side you root for,” you’re “not just denying the alleged victims their humanity. You risk robbing yourself of your own humanity, too.”

The nation just got “a preview of what American theocracy would look like,” said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons in MS.now. Thousands of people gathered on the National Mall last week for Rededicate 250, a White House–backed and taxpayer-funded prayer event that featured “a who’s who of religious-right figures,” including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and evangelical preacher Franklin Graham, who blasted America as “sick with sin, transgenderism, same-sex marriage.” The kickoff for a series of events celebrating America’s 250th anniversary, the rally framed the U.S.’s founding as an explicitly Christian project. It’s the most aggressive attack on the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom “that the Christian nationalist movement has yet attempted on American soil.” And it’s one based on a lie: The U.S. was founded 250 years ago as a secular democracy, not a theocracy. “We cannot rededicate something to God when the nation was never dedicated to one narrow religious movement.”

President Trump, who was busy playing golf, appeared in a prerecorded video reading from the biblical book of Chronicles, said Sarah Posner in Talking Points Memo. Still, his supporters spent the day “trying to turn the anniversary of our independence from a king into a spectacle of worship of their wannabe king.” Evangelical podcaster Eric Metaxas even claimed in his speech that God had “raised up” Trump to build a White House ballroom. But Rededicate 250 made it clear that not all Christians are welcome under Trump’s tent, said Amanda Marcotte in Salon. Sure, there was “a smattering of token Catholics” among the speakers—and even one rabbi. But the event was dominated by white, far-right evangelicals. “Promoting voices like these sends a message loud and clear: The rest of you don’t matter.”

Such brazen displays of Christian nationalism could push us into “a vicious cycle,” said Andrew Egger in The Bulwark. The “charlatans” who spoke at Rededicate 250 are increasingly the only “Christians” encountered by irreligious types on the Left. And the more those on the religious right tie Christianity to MAGA, the less they can be surprised “if their political opponents turn out to be hostile not only to MAGA but to Christianity itself.” For those believers who years ago made peace with Trump on the “spurious argument” that only he stood between them and “a political movement hostile to their faith, I worry that they may meet their destiny on the road they took to avoid it.”

What is a third-country deportation?

It’s the removal of a migrant or asylum seeker to a country with which he or she has no legal or personal ties. While only about 17,500 of the more than 800,000 people deported so far during President Trump’s second term have been sent to third countries, those removals are a key part of his immigration agenda. His administration has brokered transfer deals with at least 33 nations—most of them poor and corruptly run—and has paid at least $44 million to those countries in connection with the deportation agreements.

The Department of Homeland Security argues the policy is needed to remove migrants who are “so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back.” But most third-country deportees have no criminal record, and most have been granted some form of legal relief that bars the government from shipping them home, where they may face torture, persecution, or death. Some migrants have been removed suddenly from detention centers and flown to countries in Africa, Latin America, or Central Asia with abysmal human rights records. “They took us, they put us on a plane, and they chained us by our hands and feet,” said one Colombian deportee, who didn’t know until mid-flight that his destination was the Democratic Republic of Congo, an active war zone. The U.S., said Nicole Waddersheim of the nonprofit Human Rights Watch, “is doing enforced disappearances.”

Where are deportees being sent?

About 90% have been transferred to Mexico under a Biden-era agreement that let federal agents at the southern border turn back migrants during the 2021–23 immigration surge. But Trump has tried to speed up the pace of deportations by shipping migrants to any country that will take them. In February 2025, 200 people— including 81 children—from countries including Iran, Afghanistan, Angola, and China were flown on two planes to Costa Rica; many of those deported had tried to claim asylum in the U.S. Weeks later, Homeland Security shipped 261 mostly Venezuelan men to the brutal CECOT prison in El Salvador; many reported being tortured and sexually assaulted at the facility. The administration paid El Salvador more than $4 million to hold the men, whom it accused on scant evidence of being gang members. After four months at CECOT, the Venezuelans were sent to their home country. The administration then began looking farther afield for third-country destinations, striking deals with countries including Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, and South Sudan.

Is this policy legal?

That’s being contested in federal court. The Immigration and Nationality Act outlines a procedure for third-country deportations, and in June 2025 the Supreme Court ruled the administration could deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a “meaningful opportunity” to raise fear-based claims of torture. The following month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said officers could “immediately” begin sending migrants to “alternative” countries, with as little as six hours’ notice. Other courts, though, have rejected the agency’s legal justifications for specific removals: A U.S. district judge last week ordered the Trump administration to return to the U.S. a 55-year-old Colombian asylum seeker with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypothyroidism who was deported to Congo—even after the country refused to accept her because it couldn’t provide sufficient medical care. The plaintiff “meets the standard for irreparable harm,” said Judge Richard Leon, “up to and including death.”

What conditions do deportees face in third countries?

Some have described landing in tropical locations without receiving the appropriate vaccinations and then being locked up by local authorities. Those sent to Eswatini, Africa’s only absolute monarchy, were immediately ferried to a moldy, bug-infested maximum-security facility where, one Laotian migrant told his lawyer, he felt “like a caged animal.” At least two of 26 migrants sent to Cameroon contracted malaria, and journalists who have tried to contact them have had their phones and laptops confiscated. In Equatorial Guinea, deportees are held under armed guard at a remote hotel; some have contracted typhoid fever. Weeks after 11 deportees arrived in Ghana, 10 were driven to its border with Togo and told to cross over on foot. That was especially terrifying for two of the female deportees.

Why was that?

Because they were Togolese and had fled to the U.S. to escape the threat of genital mutilation and forced marriage. “In this country, nobody can help me,” said one of the women, who is now in hiding in Togo. U.S. law prohibits asylum seekers from being sent to their home country if their “life or freedom would be threatened.” But there’s no legal mechanism to stop a migrant from being deported to a third country, which then transfers them home. In November, 50 humanitarian parole recipients from Ukraine were flown to Poland and then escorted across the border to their wartorn homeland. One man on the plane “was a 36-year-old who came to America as a child 20 years ago,” said a deportee. “He hardly speaks any Ukrainian.”

Are more deportations in the works?

The Trump administration is drawing up plans to send 1,100 Afghan nationals currently housed at a U.S. military base in Qatar to Congo. The group includes former interpreters and special forces that fought alongside U.S. troops. Here in the U.S., more than 24,000 migrants have received third-country removal orders and are awaiting deportation. “It is a country I don’t know, I have no family there, I don’t speak their language,” said Bolivian asylum seeker José Yugar-Cruz, 37, who is set to be deported to Congo. “I keep thinking it’s a nightmare that I will wake up from.”

“He came, he saw, he left without much to show for it,” said David Smith in The Guardian. Throughout his state visit to Beijing two weeks ago, President Trump slathered compliments on Xi Jinping, praising China’s president-for-life as a “great leader” who is “very tall.” But Trump’s flattery got him nowhere. After 43 hours, he flew home having secured only the “vague outlines” of a few commercial deals, no agreement to slow the AI arms race, and no help on Iran, which China could pressure to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In fairness, Trump did extract a promise from Xi to send him seeds from some rosebushes he admired.

Trump reciprocated with a far more valuable gift, said The Economist: doubt over U.S. support for Taiwan. Despite a Reagan-era commitment to never negotiate with China over arms sales to the island nation — which Beijing considers a rogue province — Trump said he was delaying approval of a $14 billion weapons sale to Taiwan, calling it a “good negotiating chip” in talks with Beijing. As for America’s long-standing posture of strategic ambiguity on whether U.S. forces would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack, Trump told reporters on the flight home: “The last thing we need right now is a war that’s 9,500 miles away.”

“Not so fast,” said Gerard Baker in The Wall Street Journal. Trump says a lot of things, particularly in the “afterglow” of a state visit. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly clarified that our Taiwan policy is “unchanged,” and U.S. law requires Washington to give Taiwan the means to defend itself. But the change in China’s posture was unmistakable. An emboldened Xi warned of looming “clashes and even conflicts” over Taiwan and cautioned Trump to avoid the “Thucydides trap,” whereby a declining power’s fear of a rising one draws both into war. Once the classical reference was explained to our president, Trump insisted Xi had been slighting America’s decline under “Sleepy Joe Biden.” But Xi’s meaning was plain, as is China’s new “confidence.”

It’s easy to overlearn the lessons of history, said Lydia Polgreen in The New York Times. In his chronicle of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 B.C.), the ancient Greek historian Thucydides charts the violence that erupted when Athens — an ambitious power much like Xi’s China — “challenged the pre-eminence of Sparta.” That scenario has repeated throughout history, “with the ambition and aggression of the challenger almost always ending in bloodshed.” But the current threat to the U.S.-led global order is not China so much as the chaos Trump has unleashed with his bullying of allies, his self-sabotaging tariffs, and his epic miscalculation in Iran. “America is overthrowing America.”

Xi should check his hubris, said Ross Douthat, also in the Times. For the record, Sparta defeated upstart Athens in the Peloponnesian War, and the post-Covid U.S. economy has actually outpaced China’s in recent years. Longer term, China’s “crashing” birth rate — now one child per woman and falling — will make it “incredibly difficult” to sustain economic growth. As for the Thucydides trap, “China shouldn’t worry,” said Paul Krugman in his Substack newsletter. America is declining, but we’re not about to “lash out at a rising China” while we’re led by a self-absorbed, “pathetic” president whose main message to Americans, upon returning home, was that Xi has nice ballrooms and therefore he deserves one, too. If you want classical analogies, “think of America right now as the Roman Empire under Caligula, although Caligula didn’t do anything like as much damage.”

What happened

President Trump’s retribution tour rolled on with two more rivals losing to Trump-endorsed challengers in primaries last week, further cementing his hold over the Republican Party. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, an outspoken libertarian critic of Trump’s war in Iran and his handling of the Epstein files, lost by nearly 10 percentage points to former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein. It was the most expensive House primary in history, drawing more than $32 million in ad spending. The president intensified his attacks on Massie in recent weeks, calling him “a moron” at the National Prayer Breakfast, and urging supporters to vote for his handpicked challenger. In Louisiana, voters swept out Sen. Bill Cassidy, who tried but failed to overcome his decision to vote to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial. That “disloyalty,” Trump wrote on social media, “is now a part of legend.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) may be next on the chopping block after an emboldened Trump endorsed his primary challenger, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Trump called Cornyn “a good man,” but said he wasn’t “supportive of me when times were tough.” Brad Raffensperger, who defied Trump’s attempt to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results, also got trounced in his gubernatorial primary, finishing behind two pro-Trump candidates. In Pennsylvania, retired firefighter and union leader Bob Brooks—endorsed by both the Keystone State’s moderate Gov. Josh Shapiro and progressives like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders—won a crowded Democratic congressional primary in a closely watched swing district.

What the columnists said

“Massie’s defeat may be the end of GOP dissent,” said Mary Ellen Klas in Bloomberg, at least among elected officials who still need to face voters. Massie voted with Trump 90% of the time. But he “dared to challenge the president over his abandoned campaign promises,” and he got crushed by Trump-faithful older voters. GOP lawmakers don’t answer to their constituents or even their own values anymore. The man in the Oval Office alone “commands absolute loyalty.”

Yet Trump has created a “conundrum,” said Shane Goldmacher in The New York Times. He seems “more keen to leverage his popularity with the MAGA base” to settle scores than “to repair his image among the independents his party will need” in November’s midterms. His approval ratings continue to crater, including in one New York Times/Siena survey that shows only 26% of independents support the job he’s doing.

The Paxton endorsement made “Chuck Schumer’s day,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. The well-respected Cornyn “has been a reliable vote” for Trump for years and has shown “four terms over” that he can beat Democrats in November. The scandal-ridden Paxton, on the other hand, has been impeached by his own party, been accused of bribery, and confessed to infidelity. It’s no surprise that polls show he’s locked in a “dead heat” with Democratic nominee James Talarico, who could help flip the Senate. If that happens, “Trump will deserve ‘COMPLETE AND TOTAL’ credit, as he likes to put it.”

What happened

In a move that stunned government ethics experts, the Trump administration last week rolled out a $1.8 billion fund to compensate supposed victims of Biden-era “lawfare” and barred the IRS from pursuing “any and all” pending tax claims against the president, his family, or his businesses. “This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history,” said Donald Sherman of the non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The “anti-weaponization” fund, set at $1.776 billion in a nod to America’s founding, was created by the Justice Department to settle a $10 billion suit President Trump brought against the IRS for failing to stop the leak of his tax returns during his first term. Acting attorney general Todd Blanche said the fund will compensate people targeted under Biden for “political, personal, or ideological reasons,” and that Trump and his family will not receive payouts.

Blanche refused to rule out payment to rioters convicted of assaulting police in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump said he wasn’t involved in creating the fund, but that it would aid people who were “imprisoned wrongly” and who “turned out to be right.” Democrats assailed what they called a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies. It’s “nothing short of the sitting president of the United States looting from the Treasury for his own gain,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Two police officers who clashed with rioters on Jan. 6 sued to block the fund, saying it would help “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence” in Trump’s name. Sen. John Thune, the top Senate Republican, said he was “not a big fan” of the fund and expected it to receive a “full vetting” from lawmakers.

What the columnists said

This is Trump’s “most brazen theft of taxpayer cash yet,” said Andrew Egger in The Bulwark. Everything about this “obscene” setup is designed to “short-circuit all outside accountability.” Blanche’s order says the U.S. has “no liability” for “misuse of the funds.” And the five-person panel Blanche will pick to run the fund will not only get to “keep secret how they’re making disbursement decisions, they can also keep a lid on who’s getting paid.” This is “emperor stuff” and grounds for impeachment under any Congress with “a shred of dignity.”

Trump’s IRS lawsuit was bad, said National Review in an editorial. But this “boondoggle” is even worse. It amounts to a new government program not authorized by Congress, created under the “fictional pretense” of settling a dubious lawsuit the presiding judge seemed poised to throw out. The disbursement of the money through the U.S. Judgment Fund—a pot of money used to settle lawsuits against the U.S.—“may be legal.” But there’s “nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to passively let this sort of thing happen.”

The “most egregious part” is the dropping of all tax audits of Trump and his family, said Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times. It shields them from “any scrutiny of their business deals and financial arrangements,” and comes just after financial disclosures revealed that Trump bought and sold stocks worth at least $220 million—including in companies he’s promoted—in the first quarter of the year. The financial stakes for Trump are significant: In 2024, the Times reported Trump could face a more than $100 million tax liability.

This grift couldn’t be more blatant if Trump walked out of Fort Knox with a “shopping cart filled with gold bullion,” said David Rothkopf in the Daily Beast. And it’s just the cherry atop a vast “campaign of corruption.” He’s accepted a luxury jet from Qatar, solicited donations “to projects designed to glorify him,” doled out pardons to deep-pocketed donors, sold Trump watches and other “swag,” and engaged in shady crypto ventures that have tripled his wealth to an estimated $6.5 billion. “We are no longer a shining city on the hill. We are instead a stinking cesspool of corruption, a republic for the rapacious.”

Look beyond the pure corruption and you’ll see an even uglier message in this fund, said Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. Trump has all but declared that he’s going to use this $1.8 billion to reward the insurrectionists who were punished for trying to violently overturn his 2020 election loss. He could have handed out that cash toward the end of his term, but he’s doing it now—as the midterms approach and his popularity plummets—“to communicate directly that loyal allies can expect lavish rewards.” As Republicans sit quietly or tut-tut from the sidelines, “his intentions grow only more naked.”

SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI are all preparing initial public offerings, competing for investor cash that could determine who ends up the winner of the artificial intelligence era.

The three companies “could make 2026 the biggest year for U.S. IPOs,” said the Financial Times. The competition has been “sharpened” by familiarity: SpaceX chief Elon Musk departed OpenAI in 2018 (and recently lost a lawsuit against the ChatGPT parent) followed by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei leaving OpenAI in 2020. Now the AI rivals are positioning themselves to “command the deepest pool of capital.” All are hoping to “ride a wave of AI enthusiasm” among investors, but stock markets may be less enamored of the AI sector’s “vast cash burn” than private backers have been.

There is still enthusiasm. The artificial intelligence giants are “well-run, high-growth businesses,” said Rob Hilmer, the founder of Goanna Capital, to the Financial Times.

What did the commentators say?

The success of the IPOs depends on if the AI startups “can keep growing at the ridiculous rates they’ve achieved so far,” Parmy Olson said at Bloomberg. OpenAI says it will bring in $280 billion in revenues by 2030, up from about $25 billion now. To achieve that goal, the company’s corporate customers “must plug its technology into a broader array” of uses including “sales, finance, healthcare, human resources, logistics” and more. But many potential business clients are “keeping generative AI at bay” amid questions about whether it is “reliable enough for use in high-stakes decision-making.” Claude and ChatGPT will eventually be worked into corporate workflows. “The issue is how long that might take.”

A critical question: “How bad is the burn?” Beatrice Nolan said at Fortune. OpenAI’s need for “data centers, chips and cloud capacity” requires it to spend a lot of money, and its IPO filing will help investors determine if the company can turn a profit sooner than later. The answer “will matter to the whole AI industry.” If investors are willing to subsidize a “company spending at this scale” that will suggest the market “still has tolerance for AI’s cash bonfire.” If not, life could become “more complicated for the next wave of AI listings.”

What next?

Investors are enthusiastic about AI, but some experts warn the “novel technology comes with new risks,” said The Wall Street Journal. The sector has great potential, but the markets have “not factored in the cost of the vulnerabilities these systems could create,” Navrina Singh, the CEO of Credo AI, said to the outlet. That creates an unsettled market. “Everything is evolving so quickly,” said Jeffrey Bernardo, the CEO of Augustine Asset Management.

The IPOs could be derailed by “abundant and cheap” artificial intelligence available from Chinese labs like DeepSeek, said CNBC. There is also a “wave of Western challengers” such as Nvidia, Cohere, Reflection and Mistral that are “building cheaper, smaller, more efficient alternatives” than Anthropic and OpenAI. By the time their IPOs come to fruition, the “central premise of their valuations may already be gone.”

‘America long ago solved its dog problem. But what about the cats?’

Bruce M. Beehler at The Washington Post

Cats are a “mass killer of North America’s native birds and mammals,” but “for anyone who cares about both cats and wildlife,” the “free-ranging felines raise tricky policy issues,” says Bruce M. Beehler. The “answer for house cats is clear: treat them like dogs.” The “more difficult challenge is unowned cats,” which “should be captured, vaccinated, neutered and either put up for adoption or relocated.” Even “with a more aggressive approach, a return to balance will take years.”

Read more

‘Trump’s monument to nothing now a Memorial Day insult’

The Boston Globe editorial board

The “once unbroken vista across the Potomac River leading to Arlington National Cemetery” is now “something of a construction zone — as plans proceed apace for President Trump’s triumphal arch on Memorial Circle,” says The Boston Globe editorial board. The arch “will stand in the way of a president more obsessed with monuments than with honoring the fallen service members.” Could “there be a more stark contrast to the row upon row of simple white gravestones?”

Read more

‘Long shot’

Aymann Ismail at Slate

The “stigma among Black women in particular about owning a firearm” comes “from a lack of awareness, but also an apparent systemic effort to keep guns out of the hands of Black and brown people,” says Aymann Ismail. Though “many gun stores and ranges have made recent strides in increasing the diversity of their staff, some ranges can feel intimidating when you don’t see someone who looks like you.” As the “debate gains more traction, much of it still unfolds at the margins.”

Read more

‘Europe is slowly getting ready to ditch America’

Luke McGee at Foreign Policy

In his “second term, Trump had a real opportunity to shape the world in his image and restore the United States’ place as the undisputed leader of the free world,” says Luke McGee. But he “has continued to lash out at allies,” and “Europeans are responding in kind.” Europe “cannot replace the security infrastructure provided by Washington overnight,” but it “can slowly move away from U.S. overreliance by making long-term decisions that return strategic sovereignty to Europe.”

Read more

CROSSWORD - June 5, 2026

SUDOKU - June 5, 2026

CROSSWORD - June 5, 2026

SUDOKU - June 5, 2026

What happened

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) and other lawmakers on Monday joined a protest outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, where detainees are on hunger strike amid complaints of rotten food and inadequate medical care. The Trump administration’s denial of a request for access to the facility raised “serious questions about what they are trying to hide from public view,” Sherrill said in a statement. Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who did gain access, was caught in a cloud of tear gas and pepper spray fired by ICE agents in an armored vehicle outside the facility.

Who said what

Protesters have gathered outside the privately run detention center since last week to support the hunger strike. Tensions escalated after ICE moved strike leader Martin Soto to a different facility, allegedly to punish him. Lawmakers granted access criticized the conditions as inhumane and reiterated their calls for Delaney Hall’s closure. The Department of Homeland Security said the visits were “nothing more than a political stunt by New Jersey sanctuary politicians” and claimed “there is NO hunger strike at Delaney Hall.”

What next?

The 1,000-bed facility “has emerged as a focal point” in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, The New York Times said. Nationally, nearly “50 ICE detainees have died since Trump’s return to office,” CNN said.

What happened

The U.S. military on Monday night said it had “conducted self-defense strikes” on Iranian missile sites and “boats attempting to emplace mines,” interrupting a weekslong ceasefire after a weekend of positive signals about an imminent peace deal. Earlier, President Donald Trump said talks on ending the war were “proceeding nicely.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said a “large portion of the issues” had been resolved but no “agreement is on the verge of being signed.”

Who said what

The emerging framework indicates that Trump’s “mixture of threats and limited military operations” in Iran hasn’t “decisively shifted” Tehran’s negotiating stance, The New York Times said. After Republican hawks “slammed the contours of the deal,” The Wall Street Journal said, Trump “expanded the scope of his diplomatic ambition,” saying Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Muslim countries must normalize relations with Israel as part of any agreement. Trump posted Monday that it “should be mandatory” for all of them to “simultaneously” sign the Abraham Accords.

What next?

Trump’s Israel normalization push could give him a way to cast any peace deal “as a larger regional success story instead of a climbdown,” the Journal said. But it’s “highly unlikely to be heeded” by the Saudis or Qataris, given Israel’s intransigence on Palestinian rights.

What happened

Pope Leo XIV on Monday released his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (“Magnificent Humanity”), making a practical and moral case for “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.” AI “needs to be disarmed” as “an instrument of domination, exclusion and death,” the pope told a packed hall at the Vatican. “It must be at the service of all, and of the common good.”

Who said what

Addressed to “all people of good will,” Leo’s “methodical” teaching document traced the Catholic Church’s established “social teaching and applied its core concepts,” including solidarity and the dignity of work, “to the digital revolution,” The Associated Press said. The document’s title “says it all,” The New York Times said: Leo is “less interested in technology than in humanity.”

“Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” Leo wrote, but “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.” AI’s growth needs to be guided by “robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility,” he said. “A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few.”

What next?

Tech and religion experts said Pope Leo’s encyclical “will likely become a benchmark in the debate over AI, a point of reference for policymakers, researchers and ordinary folk alike,” the AP said. The pope is “really doing the Lord’s work here, and I say that as an atheist,” humanist Harvard chaplain Greg Epstein told the Times.

Donald Trump’s claim that the US and Iran are closing in on a peace deal has already been met with widespread criticism within his own Republican party.

The details haven’t been made public but Iran is said to have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, without charging tolls, and dispose of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. In return, the US would cease hostilities, unfreeze billions of dollars of assets, and gradually remove economic sanctions.

But Republican Senator Ted Cruz said it would be a “disastrous mistake” to leave Iran “able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz”. And Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the emerging deal “would not be worth the paper it is written on”.

What did the commentators say?

The “grim reality” is that, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has “leverage” over peace talks, said the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs columnist Gideon Rachman. And now the US seems poised to agree to a deal that “threatens to leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war began”. Trump likes to “deride” the nuclear non-proliferation agreement that Barack Obama negotiated with Iran in 2015, but this looks in many ways “worse”. Perhaps the US president “should have reread” his book, “The Art of the Deal”.

Eli Groner, a former director-general of Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, said Iran’s knowledge that it can now close the Strait of Hormuz at any point “is a victory far deeper and more strategic than any point-scoring military achievement”. His summary? “Disaster.”

The framework of the deal described by US officials would be “a series of compromises, well short of the capitulation that Trump sought”, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. Iran hasn’t accepted his demand that its highly enriched uranium be delivered to the West, nor has it agreed to give up its “right to enrich” in the future. But Trump “doesn’t appear to have any better options” to escape what has become “a military morass and a strategic dead end”. Tehran “can claim victory simply by having survived” the US assault.

Some Republicans are arguing that “peace could bring a pay-off for voters” by lowering petrol prices and easing inflation as oil tankers start to move through the Strait of Hormuz again, said CNN’s Stephen Collinson. But recovery from the strait’s closure will take time and won’t “immediately improve global economic prospects or affordability in the US”. Trump “can’t win politically”: given that a majority of Americans oppose the war, he would face a huge “backlash if he ordered new strikes”.

There’s no way to spin this humiliating “catastrophe”, Middle East expert Danny Citrinowicz, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, told The New Yorker. Rather than toppling the Iranian regime, the US and Israel have “ended up strengthening” it. It’s hard to imagine Tehran will just “give up its nuclear material” – to Trump or anyone else – because “they’re so much in the driver’s seat” here. Iran is already rebuilding its missile capacity and still has most of its launchers. Now we have “a more radicalised regime that can rush into a nuclear bomb and still have a conventional missile capacity. It’s a shit show.”

What next?

We have “reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion”, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai told a news conference in Tehran yesterday. “But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent – no one can make such a claim.” The two sides were not discussing Iran’s nuclear programme “at this stage”, he added.

This is “not a final settlement”, said the BBC; this “memorandum of understanding” seems simply to involve a 60-day extension of the ceasefire and a plan for further negotiations on “some of the thorniest issues”, including the nuclear one. That timeline seems “rather compressed, given the complexity of the issues”, said CNN’s Collinson. “History shows Iran would love to drag the United States into a prolonged period of inconclusive diplomacy that lasts months or years.”

A controversy surrounding a prize-winning short story has raised questions over the use of artificial intelligence in fiction.

“The Serpent in the Grove” by Jamir Nazir was named the winner in the Caribbean category of the Commonwealth Prize, but “syntactical tics” alleged to be telltale signs of AI use, as well as “the verdict of an AI detection platform”, have caused an uproar in the literary world, said The Guardian.

Smelling a rat

The judging committee said the winning story was told in “a voice of restraint and quiet authority”, praising Nazir’s language as “sublime” and “precise yet richly evocative”. But soon “literary sleuths smelled a rat,” said LitHub.

“Off a hunch”, Ethan Mollick, a professor who studies AI, ran the story through Pangram, a program that claims to detect AI writing with 99% accuracy; the results came back with “100% red flags”. Writing on Bluesky, Mollick said: “Come on, if you know you know.”

Nazir has denied using AI to write the story, which he says was inspired by childhood memories. Granta, the magazine that published the winning story, said they were still investigating the allegations. The foundation that awarded the prize said that all entrants were required to confirm that their submission was their own work and not created with AI assistance.

The accusation is “another episode” in an “ongoing, frenetic conversation” about “whether artists and creators are passing off AI-generated work as their own” and whether publishers “will be able to reliably catch them doing it”, said The Guardian.

In April, Hachette pulled a novel called “Shy Girl” by Mia Ballard from bookshops after Pangram said it was 78% AI-generated, and in March, The New York Times cut ties with a freelance journalist after he admitted to having used artificial intelligence to write a book review. Such episodes have “fuelled discourse around the telltale signs of AI writing”, including frequent use of specific words (“delve” being one example), a “profusion of em dashes” and a predilection for “vague, soft intensifiers” such as “quietly powerful” and “deeply transformative”.

Detection industry

The “ideal” expressed by Razmi Farook, director-general of the Commonwealth Foundation, who said she places “complete trust in writers”, may not “be enough to stem the tide of AI slop” in “everything from high literature to scientific research”, said Wired.

Some writers have already admitted that they use AI. Steven Rosenbaum acknowledged that his new book “The Future of Truth”, which “grapples with the nature of veracity in the AI age”, itself contains AI-hallucinated quotes. The Nobel Prize-winning novelist Olga Tokarczuk “outraged her own fans” by admitting that use of LLMs is “part of her creative process”.

But the “biggest bummer is to come”, said LitHub, because although “winning a literary prize is one small step” for AI, it’s “sure to be catnip for the pushers touting the technology’s creative potential”.

Meanwhile, the row over the Commonwealth Prize and similar controversies have “generated energetic business” for a “new cottage industry” of AI detectors, said The Guardian. Researchers into the efficacy of the models predict that there will be “a continuous technical arms race” between the detectors, AI models and writers adapting their usage of them.

A hypothetical doomsday for quantum computing could be on the horizon, computer scientists have warned for decades. But cybersecurity experts are now racing against the clock after Google announced that this “Q-Day” could be here much sooner than originally anticipated.

What is ‘Q-Day’?

It is the hypothetical day that quantum computers will acquire “enough resources and stability to crack conventional cryptography,” said CNN. When that day arrives, it could spell disaster for millions of people’s private information, as “every financial transaction, medical file, email, location history and crypto wallet protected by today’s commonly used algorithms could be unlocked.”

Unlike conventional computers, quantum computers utilize “quantum-mechanical phenomena” that allow them to “perform calculations that are practically impossible for even the most powerful supercomputers today,” said Forbes. Experts believe these computers could eventually crack RSA cryptography, the algorithm of prime numbers that helps to safeguard encryption. Some fear this could be accomplished “not in billions of years but in hours or days.” Others believe some “bad actors may already be collecting encrypted data” in secret, said CNN.

It was previously believed that Q-Day was still far into the future, giving the tech world plenty of time to prepare new safeguards. But Google recently announced it believes the day could arrive as soon as 2029, and the “new estimate means that governments, companies and other entities may have far less time to prepare,“ said CNN. Many are comparing Q-Day with “Y2K, or the millennium bug, a computer flaw that programmers thought might cause severe systemic problems after Dec. 31, 1999.”

What can be done?

Many companies are being urged to boost their cybersecurity initiatives as the potential for Q-Day looms. Google is also creating guidelines it hopes will “provide the clarity and urgency needed to accelerate digital transitions not only for Google but also across the industry,” the company said. To accomplish this, Google “specifically is pushing for a transition to post-quantum cryptography, or the use of new, quantum-resistant algorithms to secure data against future attacks,” said Barron’s.

Even if the 2029 date doesn’t come to pass, there is still a 10% chance Q-Day will occur by 2032, Justin Drake, a bitcoin security researcher who published a paper on the matter, said on social media. No matter the date, other precautions are being taken. For example, cryptographers “have devised new encryption algorithms that rely on problems that quantum computers don’t have an advantage over classical computers in solving,” said Ars Technica. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has also “advanced several algorithms that have yet to be broken and are presumed to be secure.”

Government entities have been weighing in too. In 2022, the National Security Agency (NSA) announced a plan to boost Q-Day readiness by the 2030s. But recently, the deadline “has been in flux as both the Biden and Trump administrations have issued executive orders prioritizing quantum readiness,” said Ars Technica. The NSA is currently “adhering to a 2031 deadline.” Despite these plans, experts remain worried, as encryption is “not a permanent state of protection,” said Forbes. It is a “time-locked safe that someone may already be holding, waiting for the combination.​”

When you make a purchase using links on our site, The Week may earn a commission. All reviews are written independently by our editorial team.

Don’t let dehydration derail your summer adventures. Keep plenty of cold beverages — and lots of snacks — close at hand in one of these decked-out coolers ready for the beach, park, campground or stadium.

BruMate BruTank 55-quart rolling cooler

Take the party on the road with the BruTank. It offers a “huge capacity” and “clever compartmental design,” including a removable drink tank with “handy spigot” for batches of cocktails, said The Strategist. The puncture-resistant wheels are big enough to “handle sand” and are rubberized for “extra traction,” and the metal handle makes the cooler “maneuverable in any direction.” There’s room for up to 48 standard or slim cans and 12 upright wine or liquor bottles, with up to seven days of ice retention. (starting at $399, BruMate)

Business & Pleasure Co. Hemingway 35-quart cooler bench

This luxe cooler’s vintage design is inspired by retro European cars and speed boats but is made for the modern world. The teak wood lid doubles as a seat, with a weather-resistant cushion that stays in place with magnets. Additional features include stainless steel hardware, retractable handles, nonslip rubber feet and a side drain. ($400, Amazon)

Dometic CFX5 electric cooler

No ice? No problem. Dometic’s CFX5 electric cooler provides “excellent” temperature control and “superb” insulation, said Outdoor Gear Lab. A Bluetooth smartphone app lets users control and monitor energy consumption and temperature, and two baskets and a removable divider keep the items organized. The cooler has a 45 liter capacity and can hold up to 67 12-ounce cans. ($840, Dometic)

Igloo KoolTunes

Yes, that is music coming from your cooler. Igloo’s KoolTunes comes equipped with built-in speakers and Bluetooth wireless pairing technology, with sound quality that is “well-rounded,” said Mashable. Coolers and boom boxes are “two summer essentials,” and KoolTunes brings them together for one “fun, functional novelty product.” ($84, Igloo)

Ninja FrostVault 65qt cooler with wheels

What sets the Ninja FrostVault apart from other coolers is its DryZone, a separate storage space away from the ice that keeps food cold without getting it wet. Having two sections is “very useful” and can “reduce cross-contamination” if you’re bringing along ingredients like raw meat, said Tom’s Guide (a sister site of The Week). Because of its thick insulation, the FrostVault’s “cooling performance is nothing short of astounding,” and drinks can stay “icy cold” for several days, even when constantly opening and closing the cooler. ($280, Ninja)

RTIC 45 QT Ultra-Tough wheeled cooler

Rugged terrain has met its match. The compact RTIC 45 QT Ultra-Tough has thick, puncture-resistant wheels able to tackle most landscapes, from “pavement and grass to sand and mud,” said Popular Science. It also has close to three inches of insulation, and if you follow RTIC’s guidelines and prechill the cooler, add cold beverages and have a 2:1 ice-to-drink ratio, it can maintain ice for up to five days. One fun feature is the bottle opener, which “acts like a padlock” when “inserted into the cooler’s front side.” ($299, RTIC)

Yeti Hopper M20 backpack soft cooler

With its waterproof nylon fabric, leakproof liner and closed-cell foam insulation, the Hopper M20 is “tough as nails,” said Wirecutter. This soft cooler is engineered for “strength and durability” and holds up on even the longest days. When “fully loaded” with 36 cans or 22 pounds of ice, the Hopper is “still remarkably easy to carry.” ($325, Yeti)

Pagosa Springs, Colo.

Elk Pointe Estate, a 2005 five-bedroom southern Colorado log house, is on a peninsula surrounded by Hidden Valley Lake. The living room features whole log beams, arched windows, and an antler chandelier; the kitchen has paneled appliances and a breakfast cove.

On more than 45 acres, the property includes patios with mountain views, a guesthouse, a dog run, a two-story barn, and a greenhouse dome. $8,950,000. Zach Morse, Legacy Properties West Sotheby’s International Realty, (970) 391-2600

Point Arena, Calif.

On the Mendocino coast, the 1990 Frog Song Farm features full log construction and visible corner joints. The two-bedroom’s dramatic double-height great room includes a log staircase and a conical fireplace with a round stone base.

The 30-plus-acre ocean-view property includes a two-bedroom guesthouse, a one-bedroom barn house, abundant gardens, a greenhouse, creeks, wooded trails, and a pond. $2,295,000. Tracy Wolfson, Engel & Völkers San Francisco, Mendocino Branch, (707) 272-5733

Bowen Island, British Columbia

Designed by Murray Arnott, this 1995 western red cedar log home is about an hour from Vancouver by ferry. The three-bedroom’s curved tower holds an open-plan living area with a rounded stone fireplace, angled windows that overlook the forest and Killarney Lake, and a rustic-modern kitchen with skylights; a carved staircase leads to a primary suite.

The 2.5-acre property features mature trees and is close to shops. $1,618,000. Mary Lynn Machado, Macdonald Realty Ltd./Luxury Portfolio International, (604) 220-7085

Pine Plains, N.Y.

This 170-acre estate designed by architect Lloyd Taft is anchored by a 1991 log-and-stone lodge near Millbrook. The six-bedroom’s vaulted great room has a floor-to-ceiling stone fireplace and French doors to a deck, with a billiards loft above.

The property includes three connected guest cabins, a triple-height sports barn, a pickleball court, a swimming hole, a football field, trails, and orchards—plus a party barn, bar, and courtyard. $7,750,000. George Langa, Houlihan Lawrence—Millbrook, (845)242-6314

Vail, Colo.

Built in 1997, this updated Swiss-chalet-style five-bedroom log home is less than 10 minutes from Vail Village. The great room’s pale logs with visible chinking contrast with ultra white floors and drywall. The modern kitchen has butcher-block counters and an arched wood dining nook, and the primary suite includes a three-sided fireplace and oxygenation to counter high altitude.

A new deck includes a barrel sauna, hot tub, and firepit. $5,675,000. Brad Cohn, Compass Vail, (970) 688-1409

Florida, Mass.

Located in the Berkshires outside the town of North Adams, this 2022 home is built with 8-inch logs and sits on 1.5 acres. The house features tongue-and-groove walls, wide-plank wood floors, an open kitchen with stainless appliances, and two main-level bedrooms and an expansive loft above.

The unfinished basement is renovation-ready. Yards and mature trees surround the home, while trails, the Deerfield River, and Mass MoCA are nearby. $349,000. Jeffrey Loholdt, Engel & Völkers Wellesley, (413) 652-7423

‘Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu’

Directed by Jon Favreau (PG-13)

★★

“It’s time to ask for more,” said Kate Erbland in IndieWire. While this first new Star Wars movie in seven years is “charming enough in the moment,” it’s “almost instantly forgettable,” a spin-off of a Star Wars TV series that’s little more than “three good-enough TV episodes smushed together.” Pedro Pascal is back as the masked bounty hunter who is the title character of Disney+’s The Mandalorian. Mando, as usual, is accompanied by the “still very cute” Grogu, aka Baby Yoda. But shouldn’t a Star Wars movie reach for more?

To me, “the film’s relative modesty comes as something of a relief,” said Johnny Oleksinski in the New York Post. “Freed from the burden of canonical responsibility,” it’s nothing but “flighty fun,” a “Western-y” space adventure in which Mando has been enlisted to rescue Jabba the Hutt’s son, Rotta, from captors as part of a larger mission to take out a baddie who’d been allied with the recently fallen Empire. Sigourney Weaver even makes an appearance. Granted, none of the many action sequences match the scale of those in the 2015–19 Star Wars movie trilogy. But the action scenes are exciting in their own right, helping to make this film “a likable-enough one-off.” Still, the Star Wars franchise “once led the culture with its imagery, swagger, and style,” said Mark Kennedy in the Associated Press. This entry feels merely formulaic, with little on the line except the outcome of a stray assignment for one bounty hunter. “You used to leave a new Star Wars movie on a cloud. Here, that galaxy is far, far away.”

‘I Love Boosters’

Directed by Boots Riley (R)

★★★

“If you’re wondering whether Boots Riley has toned down his brash satirical style, have no fear,” said Owen Gleiberman in Variety. The rapper turned director’s first film since 2018’s acclaimed Sorry to Bother You is “every bit as out there, maybe more so.” Keke Palmer plays Corvette, the leader of a three-woman gang of shoplifters who resell stolen high-end clothes and have targeted a billionaire designer played with comic flair by Demi Moore. But Riley unleashes wild departures from reality, and “you either go with it or you don’t.”

In the movie’s second half, “Riley turns the volume up on the surreal meter way past 11,” said Brian Tallerico in RogerEbert.com. After Corvette’s cause is taken up by a fourth booster who can teleport, this energetic send-up of fashion, capitalist exploitation, and cultural appropriation “goes to so many impossible, ridiculous places that Riley sometimes feels like he loses a grip on the messaging.” Still, “there’s something invigorating about seeing an artist like Riley given the freedom to just go for it.” Largely thanks to Palmer, the movie never fully falls apart, said Chase Hutchinson in The Wrap. “As always,” the One of Them Days star is “a captivating, comedic jolt of energy,” and she also provides “the emotional heft the film needs at key moments.” Riley, for all his comic flourishes, clearly roots for everybody who’s trying to survive in our cutthroat world and is helping others do the same. Though he traffics in spiky cynicism, “it’s a cynicism that is cut with a more earnest belief in people.”

‘Obsession’

Directed by Curry Barker (R)

★★★

This hit theatrical debut from 26-year-old Curry Barker is “the best kind of nightmare,” said Nick Schager in the Daily Beast. “Knotty, amusing, and absolutely unhinged,” Barker’s low-budget horror breakthrough uses a simple be-careful-what-you-wish-for premise to dramatize the destructive selfishness of a certain breed of male desire for female attention. Michael Johnston plays Bear, a meek young man who makes a wish using a novelty store item that turns Nikki, his longtime crush, into an obsessively devoted girlfriend—so devoted that she’s ready to kill to keep anyone from coming between her and her man.

In Act 3, “Barker puts the pedal to the metal, dishing out gore with the glee of a genre purist.” A fully satisfying exploration of the themes Barker raises “would take a far more gifted filmmaker,” said Bilge Ebiri in NYMag.com. “Still, Obsession carries us along,” primarily because Inde Navarrette, playing Nikki, “so beautifully switches between sickly sweet devotion and wailing, tormented lovesickness.” Barker, who got his start as a YouTube prankster, also sprinkles in weird humor, and he clears the bar that any horror flick must: “We wish we could leave the theater, but we feel we must see what happens next.” Navarrette, previously known mostly for TV roles, “delivers the kind of instant classic horror performance that will surely traumatize Gen Z for years,” said Katie Walsh in the Chicago Tribune. At least it’ll traumatize Gen Z men, who apparently find nothing more terrifying than an unpredictable woman.

Not long ago he was regarded as virtually Ukraine’s co-president, said Jamie Dettmer on Politico. Now, less than six months after being forced to resign as President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak finds himself in custody.

He was arrested last Thursday on suspicion of helping to launder $10.5 million (£7.7 million) via the construction of four luxury homes near Kyiv, some of the funds reportedly being part of the proceeds of a $100 million (£77 million) kickback scheme on contracts signed at Energoatom, the state’s atomic energy agency.

A man with outsize influence

Many of Zelenskyy’s allies have already been implicated in the wider case, including his former business partner Timur Mindich, who fled to Israel last year, and the former energy minister German Galushchenko, who was arrested in February while trying to flee the country. But Yermak’s arrest brings the matter to the very heart of the president’s inner circle, fuelling speculation about what Zelenskyy himself “may have known – or ought to have known”.

Yermak’s arrest could prove disastrous for Zelenskyy, said Steve Gutterman on Radio Free Europe (Prague). In voters’ minds, there’s an “inseparable” link between the two men. They met in 2011 when both were working in television, and their close friendship and Yermak’s “outsize influence” as an unelected adviser mean that any stain on him could well “bleed over onto Zelenskyy”. The scandal also puts at risk Kyiv’s bid for fast-track EU membership, as one of Brussels’ key demands has been that Ukraine’s notorious corruption must be curbed.

Room for optimism

Zelenskyy has stayed “tight-lipped” since the Energoatom scandal broke in November, said Kateryna Denisova in The Kyiv Independent, but it may prove harder to downplay things this time round. He hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing himself, but ever since the name Vova (a diminutive for Volodymyr) popped up in a recently leaked audiotape conversation of two corruption suspects discussing a property development outside Kyiv, rumours about him have started to swirl.

Given the ongoing war with Russia, all these allegations feel particularly egregious, said Paul Niland in the Kyiv Post. However, there is room for optimism. The $10.5 million (£7.7 million) mentioned in the Yermak case is a “far cry” from the $10 billion (£7 billion) thought to have been stolen each year from 2010-14 under the former president, Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine’s two anti-corruption agencies have been so determined to win the fight against graft that theft on that sort of scale is no longer possible. And there’s no clearer sign of that than the arrest of someone as powerful as Yermak.

On 28 April, the UAE, which produces about 4% of the world’s oil, thanked the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) for “five decades of cooperation”, then resigned.

Opec is an intergovernmental group that imposes production quotas on members to keep oil prices “fair and stable”, it says; economists see it as a classic example of a cartel, a group that collaborates to reduce competition and raise prices.

Why did the UAE leave Opec?

The UAE is thought to have left because it wants to increase production, against the wishes of Saudi Arabia, Opec’s de facto leader, but it had also recently been attacked by another member, Iran. In theory, the UAE could now export more oil, lowering the commodity’s soaring price. But thanks to the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which over half of the UAE’s oil and all of its gas usually passes), and the chaotic state of the peace negotiations between the US and Iran, energy markets barely moved. Some analysts, however, called it “the beginning of the end of Opec”.

Why was Opec created?

From the 1930s until the 1970s, a group of seven Anglo-American companies known as the “Seven Sisters” – the ancestors of today’s BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell – dominated the world oil market. They had secured long-term concessions across the Middle East, as well as in Venezuela and Indonesia, which meant they controlled over 80% of world supplies.

Producer nations were initially given only modest payments in return. After the Second World War, oil-producing countries increasingly chafed under the Seven Sisters’ grip, often demanding a larger share of revenues. In 1951, Iran nationalised its oilfields, which was reversed by a US- and British-orchestrated coup.

Around the same time, Saudi Arabia negotiated a 50:50 revenue-sharing deal with Aramco, the (then) US-owned Saudi oil company; this model soon spread. Even so, the Seven Sisters retained control over prices and production, as well as refining and distribution. Opec was created in response.

How did it come into existence?

In early 1959, in response to growing Soviet oil production, the Seven Sisters cut prices by 10%, infuriating the oil ministers of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who started making plans that year in Cairo. In September 1960, shortly after another price cut, Opec was founded in Baghdad by Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in an effort to reshape the system in the producers’ interests.

The first international organisation led by what was then called the Third World, Opec worked incrementally at first, driving “participation agreements”, which gradually transferred ownership of oil companies to host governments. But it also expanded its membership: Qatar, Libya, Indonesia, Algeria and Abu Dhabi (the largest emirate) joined in the 1960s; Nigeria joined in 1971. By 1973, when an oil crisis shook the world, Opec controlled more than half of global oil production.

What happened in 1973?

In October, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and his Arab allies – enraged by US support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War against Syria and Egypt, and Israel’s continuing occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank – convinced Opec to hike the price of oil from around $3.01 to $5.12 per barrel; the Arab nations also imposed an oil embargo on the US and other nations that backed Israel.

By early 1974, the price had risen above $12 per barrel – a 300% increase. Although the embargo only lasted until March 1974, it triggered a two-year global economic crisis, creating oil shortages and spiralling inflation, and bringing the West’s postwar boom to an end, with all manner of long-term consequences.

The long tail of the 1973 oil crisis

It’s hard to overstate the effects of the 1973 crisis and the “stagflation” that ensued, which exposed the great vulnerability of Western nations, raised unemployment sharply and accelerated deindustrialisation. It has been plausibly linked to everything from a great shift in the world financial order to the invention of punk rock.

In the UK, it speeded up the development of North Sea oil and gas fields (discovered in 1965), and the adoption of natural gas for home heating; France pivoted sharply to nuclear power. Energy conservation only became a priority as a result of the crisis.

In the US, it permanently changed the car industry, opening up the market for lighter, more fuel-efficient – often Japanese – vehicles. This, in the long run, helped make the Toyota Corolla the bestselling car of all time.

There were also unanticipated consequences in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy used the great oil wealth created to promote a puritanical, fundamentalist version of Islam. (Among the beneficiaries of the ensuing construction boom around holy sites were the bin Laden family.) This was partly to counter the spread of left-wing ideas in the Arab world, though King Faisal, a pious man, was said to be sincerely horrified by “the spiritual dangers of easy affluence”.

Did the strategy work?

The embargo’s main objective was to pressure the US into making Israel leave the Palestinian territories it had occupied in 1967. This didn’t happen, but Opec kept prices high through the 1970s: the decade saw one of the largest transfers of wealth in history, as “petrodollar” infusions from industrialised nations to nationalised oil firms allowed Opec members to fund massive infrastructure projects, build up their militaries, and establish welfare states.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 also kept prices up. At the same time, rich countries took steps to become less dependent on oil; while soaring prices encouraged new exploration, from Alaska to the North Sea, and the Soviet Union became a major producer.

What effects did this have?

The resulting “oil glut” in the 1980s meant that Opec’s power drained away. Opec decreased oil production quotas to stabilise prices, but members failed to comply, producing above their limits; while non-Opec producers pumped out more to fill the gap. Saudi Arabia, frustrated and losing market share, opened the spigots in 1986, crashing the oil price. In the years after, quotas were largely restored – but Opec’s ability to affect world prices was relatively limited, and poorer members often chafed at the restrictions.

What is the situation today?

US shale fracking technology meant that, in 2018, it overtook Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest producer. Partly in response to these changes, Opec+ had been formed in 2016. A looser group that includes big producers such as Russia and Mexico, it controls about 40% of the world’s output; but the complex, diversified global system limits its power, while smaller Opec members complain that policy is decided by the “Big Two”, Saudi Arabia and Russia. This was one reason why Qatar left Opec in 2019, damaging the image of a unified Middle Eastern bloc; Angola and Ecuador have also left.

The UAE’s departure is on a different scale: it was the cartel’s third-largest producer. The immediate effects are limited by the Iran crisis. But without its “swing” capacity to increase production fast, Opec’s ability to act as a “global central bank for oil” is diminished.

A rare event occurred last week, said Fred Kaplan on Slate: President Trump posted a completely accurate observation on social media. Commenting on Iran’s response to a US ceasefire proposal, he declared it “totally unacceptable”.

He’s right about that. Iran’s statement – which included no concessions and a long list of demands, including war reparations, the lifting of all sanctions and Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz – read like something “the winner of a war would issue”. The question is, what can Trump do about it?

He has repeatedly threatened to resume bombing Iran if the regime rejects his peace proposals, but it’s hard to see what that would achieve. If the 38 days of devastating air strikes that began on 28 February failed to bring Tehran to heel, what difference would obliterating a few more targets make?

‘Wiggle out of this conflict’

“If this isn’t checkmate, it’s close,” said Robert Kagan in The Atlantic. Trump halted the bombing campaign on Iran “not because he was bored, but because Iran was striking the region’s vital oil and gas facilities”. If he’s not willing to accept the risk of more such retaliation, or to mount a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the Iranian regime, “walking away now could seem like the least bad option”.

Trump, to his credit, shows no sign of wanting to “wiggle out of this conflict” or sign some meaningless deal, said Noah Rothman in National Review. He’s rightly determined to stop Tehran getting a nuclear weapon. But to succeed, he’ll need to solicit the public’s support for this project, which requires showing a bit more patience and “humility”. He’s not going to win people over by branding all critics “stupid”, or dismissing the inflationary effects of the war. He recently claimed that he was motivated only by the nuclear issue, saying “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation at all”. That quote is going to be used against him in countless Democratic campaign adverts.

‘We will all reap the whirlwind if Iran comes out of this stronger’

Trump’s rudeness and arrogance has also made Nato allies very disinclined to come to America’s aid, said Thomas L. Friedman in The New York Times. Which is too bad, as the administration could really do with their help. The reality is that it’s in all of our interests to fix the Iran situation. It will be terrible for Europe if Tehran is allowed to decide who can and who can’t pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

And it will be worse still for the Arab Gulf states that rely on the channel, endangering their modernising, pluralistic reforms. “The Dubai model is precisely the one Tehran wants to destroy.” It’s understandable that Nato allies are loath to help Trump, but make no mistake: “we will all reap the whirlwind if Iran comes out of this stronger”.

While there are still some holdouts against the idea that animated entertainment can be perfectly suitable for adults, even hardened skeptics would be moved to open their minds to these tremendous series. Though many fully grown adults enjoy shows like “SpongeBob SquarePants,” our list includes only shows explicitly designed for them.

‘The Simpsons’ (1989-)

The longest-running scripted series in television history, “The Simpsons” has become a ubiquitous piece of popular culture, making it easy to forget how groundbreaking it was in 1989. A zany sitcom about a family of five in a town called Springfield (no, we will never know which state), where Homer (Dan Castellaneta), a nuclear plant technician with anger management issues and no-nonsense Marge (Julie Kavner) are raising their kids, Bart (Nancy Cartwright), Lisa (Yeardley Smith) and baby Maggie. Over the course of more than 800 episodes, the series maintains a “joke-a-minute spectacle that veered between absurdist physical gags and heartfelt family squabbles” and still “functions as an education in American culture,” said Jesse David Fox at Vulture. (Disney+)

‘South Park’ (1997-)

One of several groundbreaking ’90s-era animated series still in production, Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s ultra-cynical comedy remains centered around a group of dyspeptic, cursing fourth-graders, one of whom (Kenny, voiced by Stone) dies during almost every single episode of the first five seasons, with his friends exclaiming, “Oh my God, they killed Kenny!”

Irreverent and provocative, the series offers a long-running satirical take on pop culture and American politics. The show’s “bestiary of Main Street America, its hapless parents and inept leaders, its weird small businesses and petty local politics, its moral pretensions and amoral vanities do ring true, however exaggerated,” said Jacob Bacharach at The New Republic. (Paramount+)

‘Family Guy’ (1999-)

As historically significant as “The Simpsons” in making animated series appeal to grown-ups, creator Seth MacFarlane’s pointed farce about the misadventures of a dysfunctional family that includes a malevolent baby named Stewie (MacFarlane) is still going strong. MacFarlane also voices the bumbling patriarch, Peter Griffin, with Alex Borstein as his wife, Lois, and Seth Green and Mila Kunis as their older kids, Meg and Chris. The show “has laughs, and lots of them, poking fun at targets as diverse as prison perversion, Hitler’s inferiority and football announcers,” said Barry Garron at The Hollywood Reporter. It is “bright, entertaining and often witty and warm.” (Hulu)

‘The Boondocks’ (2005-2014)

“The Boondocks,” adapted from Aaron McGruder’s popular comic strip, is one of the few animated series to make a serious effort to tackle issues of race and privilege in contemporary America, albeit in an often intentionally crass fashion. When Robert "Granddad" Freeman (John Witherspoon) and his grandsons, Huey and Riley (Regina King on both counts), move from Chicago to a predominantly white suburb, they struggle to maintain their connection to their roots and situate themselves in a radically different culture. The writing is “funny and pungent from the start,” and the “Asian-influenced animation” makes it the “American show truest to the look and feel of serious Japanese anime,” said Mike Hale at The New York Times. (HBO Max)

‘Archer’ (2009-2023)

H. Jon Benjamin is Sterling Archer, an agent with a spy agency that was called International Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS) in the early seasons before that became untenable. Archer is a jerk, a well-worn conceit made fresh by his dynamics with his colleagues.

Like “Parks and Recreation,” this is essentially an office comedy with a serving of espionage adventure on the side. A superb ensemble includes his mother, Malory (Jessica Walter), agent Lana Kane (Aisha Tyler) and nerdy Cyril Figgis (Chris Parnell) among many others. An “extremely silly show that consistently reveals itself as surprisingly mature via the thoughtfulness and expertise infused throughout all of its other production aspects,” it manages to be “at once categorically preposterous and occasionally brilliant,” said Mike LeChavillier at Slant Magazine. (Disney+)

‘Adventure Time’ (2010-2018)

Perhaps some might quibble with the inclusion of The Cartoon Network’s trippy, post-apocalyptic coming-of-age story on a list for adults, but Pendleton Ward’s endlessly inventive, uproarious and frequently touching series is for all ages. The show follows the adventures of a boy named Finn (Jeremy Shada) and his shape-shifting dog, Jake (John DiMaggio), who can bend and twist his body into anything from a brick house to a “Gut Grinder,” a monster who steals gold from local villages. “Adventure Time” is steeped in a “deeper, more earnest kind of surrealism that is distinct from some inchoate sense of oddity,” and the series “treats subjects like loss, romance and aging with great tact and feeling,” said Juliet Kleber at The New Republic. (Disney+)

‘Bob’s Burgers’ (2011-)

“Bob’s Burgers” is frequently contrasted with its more cynical fellow-travelers, like “South Park” and “The Simpsons.” Its bedrock appeal has always been its depiction of a more or less happy family struggling to get by while running a Jersey Shore burger joint.

H. Jon Benjamin voices Bob, with his wife, Linda (John Roberts), and their three goofy offspring, Tina (Dan Mintz), Gene (Eugene Mirman) and Louise (Kristen Schaal). Its “offbeat family dynamic is the show’s greatest asset,” and their often cringe-worthy foibles “remind us that families are often most tightly knit when they’re at their most pathetic,” said Joseph Jon Lanthier at Slant Magazine. (Disney+)

‘BoJack Horseman’ (2014-2020)

BoJack (Will Arnett) is a down-on-his-luck, hard-drinking horse and former sitcom star experiencing the familiar beats of post-stardom, including addiction and depression, in a lovingly realized alternate Hollywood in which animals and humans live side-by-side. That alone makes “BoJack Horseman,” which was the first adult animated series from Netflix, unique in the space.

In the first season, BoJack is on the comeback trail, half-heartedly working on a memoir with his biographer, Diane (Alison Brie), and possibly breaking up her marriage to Mr. Peanutbutter (Paul F. Tompkins). It’s “one of the wisest, most emotionally ambitious and — this is not a contradiction — spectacularly goofy series on television,” said Emily Nussbaum at The New Yorker. (Netflix)

‘Arcane’ (2021-2024)

With so much animated content out there, it’s not easy to make something that feels genuinely fresh and that looks like nothing else on TV, but that’s exactly what showrunners Christian Linke and Alex Yee deliver with “Arcane.” Based in the universe of the game League of Legends, it revolves around sisters Vi (Hailee Steinfeld) and Jinx (Ella Purnell) and a haves and have-nots struggle between the gleaming city of Piltover and the run-down, oppressed “undercity” of Zaun.

As children, Vi and Jinx lose their parents in an abortive revolution in Zaun, and years later find themselves on opposite sides of an unfolding power struggle between the two city-states. Easily “one of the most lavishly acclaimed animated series of the past decade,” it is carried out with a “fascinating collision of style,” in which “various forms of traditional animation are spliced together with computer-generated 3D,” said Kambole Campbell at Empire. (Netflix)

Among the many crusades in his quest to “Make America Healthy Again,” one target of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is antidepressants. Kennedy has long said that psychiatric drugs like SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) are harmful, including claiming they cause mass shootings.

Kennedy recently announced at a MAHA Institute mental health summit an initiative to help wean Americans off antidepressants. The announcement sparked a debate among experts over the campaign’s pros and cons.

Stigmatization and lack of access

Kennedy’s perspective on deprescribing SSRIs “really is an oversimplification,” Theresa Miskimen Rivera, the president of the American Psychiatric Association, said to NPR. The health secretary’s view “ignores the larger reality,” which is that “too many patients really cannot access timely, comprehensive care.” Rivera and the American Psychiatric Association support “any plans to better train healthcare providers to safely prescribe and wean patients off antidepressants.”

The health secretary has “no real interest in fixing structural problems that leave people with no choice but to use SSRIs,” Amanda Marcotte said at Salon. On the contrary, Kennedy has a “long history of talking about people on SSRIs in dehumanizing, often racist language” that implies “their actual problem is they’re lazy and need to just work harder — or even work for free.” The problem isn’t “lack of will but lack of access.” The only purpose of Kennedy’s rhetoric is to make it “easier to justify taking away their healthcare.” It is the “same old Republican playbook, just dressed up in a phony mask of compassion.”

There is a “legitimate clinical problem” at the center of Kennedy’s initiative to help Americans stop taking antidepressants, Jonathan Slater, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said at Stat News. Deprescribing is indeed “understudied, undertaught and under-reimbursed.”

But the health secretary’s campaign “conflates that genuine clinical need with claims unsupported by evidence, and some that are actively dangerous,” said Slater. Redirecting patients away from medications is “only clinically responsible if the alternatives are accessible. They are not.” Patients on antidepressants deserve two things: an “honest conversation about whether they still need their medication” and a “system equipped to help them stop safely if they do not.” Right now, “we have neither the data nor the infrastructure to deliver that.”

Turning a blind eye to weaning difficulties

For decades, mainstream psychiatry “willfully blinded itself” to the “burden and severity of withdrawal and discontinuation-related difficulties” from antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, Awais Aftab, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry, said to The New York Times. American Society for Clinical Pathology guidelines only “tinker” toward solutions and “generally recommend maintenance treatment for recurrent depression, bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia, ignoring controversies in these areas.” The guidelines assume that most people are “correctly diagnosed,” when in reality there is “widespread diagnostic chaos and decisions about maintenance are made under considerable uncertainty.”

Kennedy is correct that more “evidence-based care and therapies” should be available, Vera Feuer, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, said to NPR. Some of the health secretary’s recommendations are “completely reasonable.” Everybody should have access to a “detailed, careful assessment.” Prescribers should also not “feel pressured by parents and schools to instantly medicate behaviors that are due to other issues.”

In diagnosing “overmedicalization as a major problem,” the MAHA movement “gets something right,” Khameer Kidia, a physician and anthropologist at Harvard Medical School, said at The Boston Globe. However, the issue “doesn’t begin with physicians and our prescription pads.” As the opioid epidemic has shown, the “problem starts higher up.”

Drug companies have led the public to believe the “drugs corrected a chemical imbalance in the brain,” said Kidia. No such imbalance has been proven, and “many research studies show the drugs are only modestly better than placebos.” Now that so many patients are on SSRIs, “pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to get them to stop.” The problem with “MAHA’s approach to mental health” is the “overarching placement of responsibility with individuals” rather than the “exploitative systems that create poor mental health.” MAHA is “half right with the diagnosis,” but its “prescription conveniently ignores the root causes of the problems it has identified.”

After months of stoking speculation over which Republican he would endorse in the acrimonious Texas Senate primary runoff race, President Donald Trump on Wednesday finally made his choice between Attorney General Ken Paxton and incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. But by throwing his political heft behind Paxton, a candidate whose skeleton-filled closet risks turning off general election voters, Trump may have instigated a major GOP schism in a reliably red state.

What did the commentators say?

Trump’s “eleventh-hour decision” to endorse Paxton, a “longtime MAGA ally,” gives the embattled attorney general a “late boost over establishment Republicans’ preferred candidate,” said Politico. Cornyn’s camp, however, fears that nominating the “scandal-plagued Paxton” could “put control of the Senate at risk and cost the party hundreds of millions of dollars to defend the seat this fall.” Paxton “would be an albatross around the neck of our candidates,” said Cornyn at a campaign event just hours after Trump’s endorsement, per KTSM 9 News. If nominated, Paxton “would likely lose” to Democrat James Talarico in November.

Republican senators “appeared stunned and livid” as news of Trump’s endorsement reverberated across Washington, said The New York Times. Many in the caucus “had been urging” the White House to back Cornyn, “whom they saw as a stronger candidate in a general election.” Trump’s “decision to do otherwise amounted to a slap at” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who is “an institutionalist like” Cornyn.

“I’m sad personally for John Cornyn, and I hope he’s successful in his election regardless,” said one Republican senator to The Hill. “I’m sad for the institution.” It is “as much about President Trump sending a message to John Thune as the leader of the Senate as it is about an endorsement of Ken Paxton,” said longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon to The Wall Street Journal.

Made after “months of waffling,” Trump’s decision to endorse Paxton reflected the president’s “renewed conviction” that he “maintains an iron grip on the party following recent electoral victories,” said the Journal. Trump likely saw “recent internal polling,” was “convinced Paxton was pulling ahead with GOP primary voters” and “wanted to be on the winning side,” said Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, to the Houston Chronicle. Trump picking Paxton “isn’t a shock given their history,” said the outlet. Not only has Paxton “golfed with Trump,” but he attended Trump’s 2021 “Stop The Steal” rally that preceded the January 6 insurrection and had “filed a petition with the Supreme Court to challenge the 2020 presidential election results in swing states for Trump.”

“Already the most expensive primary in history,” the Paxton-Cornyn race is also the “most expensive runoff ever,” said MS NOW. Some Republicans worry that it will “cost the GOP even more to keep the Senate seat red,” as the broader race, thanks to Trump’s intervention, has now grown “more competitive.”

Texas has “long been a great white whale” for Democrats, said The Hill. With a “uniquely strong nominee in James Talarico,” the party hopes that Trump’s “boost of Paxton could leave them with a vulnerable opponent” in November.

What next?

“Prolonged Republican infighting,” coupled with “growing anti-Trump sentiment,” has created a Texas race “more competitive than anyone would have predicted a year ago,” said The New Yorker. Democrats, “wary after years of predictions” that statewide wins are “just around the corner,” are now “allowing themselves to hope again, cautiously.”

We’ll learn “soon enough how GOP voters in Texas respond” to Trump’s backing of Paxton, said MS NOW. It’s “worth appreciating” that many Texas conservatives “believe Paxton can win.” But if he clinches the nomination over Cornyn next week, the GOP will “have to spend heavily” on Paxton’s behalf with “money they won’t have to spend elsewhere.”

Should Cornyn lose to Paxton, Trump will “face the prospect” of his joining a group of “lame duck senators more willing to buck his demands,” said the Times. Still, some Republicans are sticking with Trump’s choice, at least publicly. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the pathway for Paxton is there,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to the outlet. “What we’ve got to do is raise a lot more money now.”

What happened

Stephen Colbert on Thursday night hosted the final CBS “Late Show,” nearly 33 years after David Letterman launched the franchise. Paramount canceled the top-rated late-night show last year while seeking approval for a merger from the Trump administration. But “despite all the controversy, Colbert chose to go out on a joyful, celebratory note, with help from Paul McCartney” and other celebrity guests, USA Today said.

Who said what

“We were lucky enough to be here for the last 11 years,” Colbert told his audience when they booed his reminder it was the final episode. He closed the show with his fellow late-night hosts, beside an “interdimensional wormhole” threatening to swallow all of late-night TV. The premature death of Colbert’s show isn’t exactly “‘the death of late night’ — that funeral has been going on for decades,” James Poniewozik said at The New York Times. But it “feels like the end of a cultural era,” or “actually, two eras”: His “Colbert Report” skillfully “parodied politics,” and his “Late Show” unspooled through a “time when politics became a parody of itself.”

What next?

“The Late Show” is being replaced, starting Friday, with Byron Allen’s “Comics Unleashed,” which “features a rotating roundtable of comics” and is “purposefully evergreen in nature,” CNN said, meaning it “noticeably lacks any political humor.”

What happened

A federal judge in Chicago on Thursday permanently dropped all charges against the four remaining “Broadview Six” anti-ICE demonstrators. U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros requested the controversial, high-profile case be dismissed after a “stunning hearing that revealed apparent misconduct” by his office’s prosecutors, the Chicago Sun-Times said. The “rare federal trial for misdemeanor charges” had been slated to start next week, CBS News said.

Who said what

U.S. District Judge April Perry told Boutros she was “incredibly shocked” by the “prosecutorial behavior” in the grand jury proceedings, according to transcripts of the closed hearing. Boutros acknowledged the errors, said he didn’t think it was “deliberate misconduct,” then defended charging the defendants for protesting outside the Broadview detention center during last year’s “Midway Blitz” deportation campaign. Perry told him he was “significantly undercutting” his “mea culpa here by standing behind the charges and continuing to vilify these particular defendants.”

What next?

Perry “said she plans to consider possible sanctions against the prosecutors,” The Wall Street Journal said. “Federal judges don’t talk like this unless it’s REALLY bad, and it is,” former federal litigator Ken “Popehat” White said on social media. “Heads should roll. Careers should end.”