BBC documentary allows four-time gold medalist chance to share real version of events that describe how he was trafficked to UK as a child

The Fellas, or NAFO, are a loose cadre of extremely online shitposters who are raising money for Ukraine and fighting Russian disinformation.

After laying off 25 people two months ago

The schtick can only go on for so long

Sri Lanka's President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was blocked from departing Sri Lanka on Monday after refusing to join a public queue at the Bandaranaike International Airport in order to have his passport checked by immigration, a high-ranking military source told CNN.

Wallet inspectors not found at address on hastily-produced-with-crayons business card

...the documentary is in many ways a typical white-savior story, an emotion-saturated tale of two telegenic Americans on a mission to save elephants from poachers and corrupt African officials. What is most notable about the documentary, though, is that it is also—and I write this without exaggeration—a snuff film. ABC producers included in this documentary the filmed murder of an alleged poacher, executed while lying collapsed on the ground after having already been shot. The victim is not identified by the story’s narrator, the journalist Meredith Vieira. Nor is the identity of the person or persons who fired the fatal shots off-camera disclosed. There is little in the video to suggest that the person killed was a poacher, and indeed, the ABC script refers to the victim as a “trespasser,” though it is also unclear where this trespassing might have taken place.

A day out hand fishing for catfish on the South Canadian River in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, has turned into a murder investigation after a man claims Bigfoot forced him to kill his friend. Larry Sanders, 53, stands charged with first-degree murder after allegedly admitting first to a family member and later to police to killing his noodling fishing partner Jimmy Knighten, who Sanders claimed wanted him dead by the hand of the mythical monster...

Police say a gang set up a fake version of the Indian Premier League and fooled Russian gamblers.

Can unblocking your chakras get you a house? Maybe!

NASA's $10 billion new telescope showed the world something remarkable today: an image of some of the first galaxies to form in the universe.

The historic Friendship Park at the border of Southern California and Mexico is facing permanent closure as a result of upcoming border wall construction. This plan, approved by President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, utilizes designs authorized by the Trump Administration and involves the building of two 30-foot walls across the face of Friendship Park. Paul Enriquez, Real Estate and Environmental Infrastructure Portfolio Deputy Director for U.S. Border Patrol, says that the 30-foot “bollard-style” walls that were built near the park during the Trump Administration will be extended by this project. The plans do not currently include an entrance for pedestrians on the secondary wall, according to Assistant Chief of San Diego Border Patrol Alfonso Martinez and Imperial Beach Station Chief Justin De La Torre. This would mean that the U.S. side of the park would be inaccessible. This construction would effectively end Friendship Park, which was once a unique binational meeting ground for separated families and loved ones at the western-most end of the U.S.-Mexico border, near San Diego.

If Democrats don’t bring the Supreme Court to heel, Americans will live under judicial despotism for the foreseeable future. In just a one-week span in June, the Supreme Court dealt several terrific blows to American freedom and self-government. It overturned a century-old New York law restricting the concealed carry of firearms; it overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing about 26 states to ban abortion, with more to come if Republicans win the congressional midterms; and it sharply limited the ability for the executive branch to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, which could eventually hamstring the administrative apparatus that has governed the United States for well over a century. The Court also recently agreed to hear a case on the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which holds that state legislatures have total power over their electoral systems. If the ruling goes conservatives’ way again, it would allow gerrymandered Republican legislatures to hand the presidency to their own party in 2024, striking another blow against democracy itself. This disaster is being perpetrated by perhaps the least democratically legitimate Supreme Court in history. Five of the six right-wing justices were appointed by presidents who took office after losing the popular vote. The other, Clarence Thomas, is married to an avowed conservative activist who actively agitated to overturn the 2020 election. In 2016, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell held one seat open for a year, in violation of all precedent and the text of the Constitution, to ensure his preferred replacement. Republicans have had a Court majority since the Nixon administration, even though they have won the presidential popular vote just once since 1989. The inexorable march of tradition and timidity on the part of the government’s other branches has given this pack of conservative apparatchiks what amounts to monarchical powers over the American people. It’s no wonder that their decisions are so terrible—and so ominous for the country’s future. What is to be done? I propose to attack the problem at the root and abolish judicial review. The Court does not have the sole power to interpret the Constitution, nor the power to strike down any law it choses, and it’s time to say so.

The first images from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, the world’s largest and most powerful space telescope, will demonstrate Webb at its full power, ready to begin its mission to unfold the infrared universe. The first images will be added to this page as they are released.

“We have to do more than that!” Oliver shouted, among other remarks, while standing up and wearing dark sunglasses, grey beard and purple jacket. At first Biden told him, “Sit down, you’ll hear what I have to say,” but then the president relented and said, “Let him talk, let him talk, OK?” By then, however, security had already stepped in to take Oliver away.

Or what the Democratic center has failed to learn over the past three decades. Accelerationism is the belief that things must get worse to get better—that reactionary forces must win political power to spur the development of a revolutionary spirit in the masses. Typically, it’s a tendency associated with the far left–diehard revolutionary factionalists who have mistaken schematic accounts of how history works for reality. It is blamed for all sorts of nasty outcomes, like people voting for Green Party presidential candidates rather than Democratic ones, without any concern for the damage George W. Bush or Donald Trump might do in office. What’s odd, having known plenty of Green voters and abstainers over the years, is how few proper accelerationists I’ve run into, and how rarely I’ve heard anyone explicitly make the case for it. So I was a bit taken aback recently to see the argument made quite explicitly in a book about the 1990s. Not because the era itself seemed inhospitable to accelerationist ideas—it was, after all, the age of Adbusters and the WTO protests—but because of which side of the political spectrum was so openly espousing it. As you likely remember, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, and then his Democratic Party lost control of Congress in 1994. Left Behind, a new book by the historian Lily Geismer (which I recently reviewed for The New Republic), revisits the New Democratic vanguard in and around the Clinton White House, and examines the broader forces behind that political movement. And in the middle of it, the reader learns that key Democratic Party strategists literally, on paper and everything, welcomed what came to be called the Republican Revolution. “The 1994 elections have wiped the slate clean and liberated Democrats from special-interest liberalism,” Al From and Will Marshall wrote in 1995 to fellow members of the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization of centrist Democratic politicians and policy gurus that Clinton led prior to his presidency. From was one the DLC’s founders, and Marshall was (and is) the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a stolidly centrist Democratic think tank. Both men were enormously influential members of the Democratic Party establishment, and both had the president’s ear. And both apparently celebrated an election that saw the end of a generation of Democratic control of the House of Representatives, because it would force their party to institute a purge.

VFX artists call Marvel the "worst" client to work for.

Joe Biden should run for president in 2024. But if he decides against it for reason, Jon Stewart should run on the Democratic ticket instead.

J.A. Morrell felt very good about his sausage-shaped airship. In February 1908, the inventor boasted it could "take a businessman to New York from San Francisco in the morning in time for luncheon there and return him to San Francisco to take his evening meal here.” Considering this is barely possible in the 21st century, it was a big claim — and one Morrell was determined to prove. By late spring, he was ready to send the 450-foot-long prototype into the Bay Area skies. But San Francisco officials, understandably, didn’t think a massive, gas-powered hot dog was a safe thing to try out over a populated area. So Morrell moved his project to quiet, bucolic Berkeley. There, a San Francisco fire chief reportedly cautioned his Berkeley counterparts that Morrell’s airship was a “menace to life and safety.” Unfortunately for everyone, that warning went unheeded.

Arizona spends a majority of its welfare budget on the Department of Child Safety. The agency then investigates many poor parents, sometimes removing their children for reasons stemming from their poverty. Arizona’s welfare department initially provided her with just over $200 a month, the lowest maximum amount offered by any state outside of the Deep South, where the cost of living is far less. But after a couple of payments, the agency stopped sending her the aid because her income from working was deemed too high for her to qualify. Last year, on a monthly basis, Arizona denied an average of 3,709 out of 4,277 applications from poor families seeking cash assistance. Just 6% of all families in poverty here get such help, compared with a national rate of 23%. A big part of the reason is that Arizona spends only 13% of its welfare funding on welfare itself, and none on child care or pre-K. Meanwhile, it diverts 61% of the dollars to the state’s child protective services system, which amounts to more than $150 million repurposed in this way every year, a ProPublica review of budget documents shows. In other words, welfare in Arizona largely goes not to helping poor parents financially but rather to the state’s Department of Child Safety — an agency that investigates many of these same parents, and that sometimes takes their kids away for reasons arising from the poverty that they were seeking help with in the first place.