NFL Week 5 predictions: Picks against the spread for every game

The writer famous for fairy-tale rom-coms is making her Broadway debut with "Left on Tenth," a play adapted from her bestselling memoir about a widow pursuing another chance at love, just when she is diagnosed with leukemia.

The $700 million Taystee Lab Building sits in the Manhattanville Factory District, but the laboratory goes beyond West Harlem’s manufacturing history. Surrounded by brick buildings on West 126th Street, Taystee spans 11 floors, with glass windows that overlook Columbia University and the City College of New York. Inside any of the currently vacant labs, a...

Carl Court/Getty ImagesKing Charles’ cancer means he now eats lunchKing Charles has long averred the absurd middle class custom of stopping in the middle of the day to consume food, a habit known to the rest of us as “lunch,” preferring to nibble on nuts and seeds he carries in his pockets and reportedly even shares with red squirrels on occasions.Now, however, in yet another sign of the changes the king is being forced to make in wake of his cancer diagnosis, he has started to eat lunch for the first time, and The Mail on Sunday says his meal of choice is one of Meghan Markle’s favorite foods, an avocado.Read more at The Daily Beast.

The Duchess of Sussex posed on the green carpet at the charity event in the gown, which she repurposed into a red U-neck bustier column dress.

Israel and Hezbollah have traded fire across the Lebanon border almost daily since the day after Hamas' cross-border attack on Oct. 7, 2023.

Miami is living right this season. A week after an overturned Virginia Tech Hail Mary would have ended No. 8 Miami’s undefeated season, the Hurricanes got another favorable call from the refs to help finish off a rally against Cal. With the Golden Bears up 38-32 and trying to run out the clock, quarterback Fernando...

Twenty-year-old Jacob Rock is a non-verbal young man with autism who quietly composed an entire six-movement symphony in his head. After struggling to communicate for much of his life, he learned how to share his ideas via an iPad app with musician Rob Laufer. The two created the symphony "Unforgettable Sunrise," which was premiered last year by a 55-piece orchestra from the University of Southern California's Thornton School of Music. Correspondent Lee Cowan talked with Rock and Laufer, and with Jacob's father, Paul, about a remarkable musical odyssey.

MIKE NELSON/Getty ImagesA juror on the Menendez brothers’ trial said she believes that today’s world would have been more understanding about the complexity of the trauma suffered by sexual abuse victims — and would have acquitted the brothers of the 1989 murder of their parents.“If they were tried again, I do think that the outcome would be very different because people know more these days, people understand more these days,” Hazel Thornton, a juror from Lyle and Erik Menendez’s first trial, told NewsNation’s “Banfield” Friday.The brothers claimed they acted in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, José Menendez, when they gunned down him and their mother, Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home.Read more at The Daily Beast.

"Saturday Night Live" took Sean Combs and Prince Andrew to task for their respective scandals.

"Sunday Morning" looks back at historical events on this date.

Just weeks before the presidential election, new rules are going into effect in some states that can jeopardize people's right to vote, from challenges to voter registrations, to limits on when and how ballots may be cast.

The wide receiver is widely expected to rejoin the Green Bay Packers next week after he serves a one-game suspension due to what was deemed as conduct detrimental to the team.

"I held the hand of that man who sends out the mean tweets and I thanked him for loving our country and for fighting for our freedoms," Sally Sheri said.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and his claims he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre are demonstrably false. Saturday Night Live lambasted the vice presidential hopeful's false claims and flailing on the debate stage.  The post Watch: ‘Saturday Night Live’ Skewers Tim Walz over False Tiananmen Square Claims appeared first on Breitbart.

Clinton told CNN host Michael Smerconish that while there have been some steps taken at the state level to regulate social media, she wants to see more done by the federal government to moderate content.

State laws regulating how payment apps protect stored funds vary, creating a confusing patchwork that’s compounded by customer service challenges.

Lo mein and chow mein are Chinese food classics. Fox News Digital spoke to two chefs to decipher the differences and similarities between these two noodle favorites.

Films for people of all ages ... or so it would seem.

As the Wizards begin their exhibition schedule in Montreal, the rookie guard will also get a family reunion.

Even stuff that holds a lot of meaning sometimes has to go.

Post sports gambling editor/producer and digital sports editor Matt Ehalt is in his first season in the Bettor’s Guide. 

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced Sunday that it would attack Hamas in northern Gaza, principally around the area of Jabaliya, and has warned residents to leave, while expanding the humanitarian zone further south. The post IDF Renews Attack on Hamas in Northern Gaza; Orders Evacuations appeared first on Breitbart.

Why we're targeting the Commanders and Colts secondaries.

Iran is bracing for an Israeli response to its second massive ballistic missile attack last week, which could come at any time. The post Iran Awards Medal for Missile Attack on Israel but Awaits Response appeared first on Breitbart.

Former Shin Bet agent Michael Koubi said he came to know the Hamas leader's one, true goal: to kill all Jews.

Ukrainian recruiters are reportedly roaming the streets of the country in a desperate effort to bolster the ranks of the military as the war with Russia continues to sap the native population. The post Ukraine ‘Conscription Squads’ Grabbing Men off Streets to Fight in War: Report appeared first on Breitbart.

Two teens have been arrested and charged with gang assault for the attack on former New York Gov. David Paterson and his 20-year-old stepson, authorities say.

Ms. Gray, chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said she was stepping down after sustained news media attention over her pay and status.

Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a new framework for thinking through your ethical dilemmas and philosophical questions. This unconventional column is based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Here is a Vox reader’s question, condensed and edited for clarity. My grandmother had a teenage pregnancy she hid from her family before giving birth in secret and immediately giving the child up for adoption after birth. I accidentally discovered this after I received a message on an ancestry DNA website from someone closely related genetically to me. She told me she knew barely anything about her birth parents and was desperate to just have an answer. I accidentally exposed this secret to my mother and grandmother by asking if anyone knew who this person who messaged me was. My grandmother was horrified, and wants nothing to do with her. How do I respect the choice my grandmother felt she had to make at that time in her life and protect her peace, while also acknowledging that this person should be able to at least know who the people who created her are and prominent family medical history? I feel guilty for exposing this secret accidentally but now I feel like I have an obligation to protect my grandmother and offer this person some peace of mind. Dear Caught-in-the-Middle, Your question reminded me of an idea from Bernard Williams, one of my favorite modern philosophers. He said that someone facing a moral trade-off can make what is, all things considered, the best decision, and — even though it was the right call — find that it still results in some cost that deserves acknowledgment or feels regrettable. Williams called that cost “the moral remainder.” Regret is a trickster of an emotion. We’re used to viewing it as an indication that we’ve done something wrong. But as Williams explains, sometimes all it means is that reality has forced upon us an incredibly hard choice between two options, with no cost-free option available.  Your grandmother is not in the wrong for giving up her child all those years ago — or for wanting to keep her distance now. As you said, it’s the choice she “felt she had to make at that time in her life.” Pregnancy outside of marriage, especially in her generation, often came with a massive serving of shame, and the fact that she felt the need to hide it from her family and give birth in secret suggests this was a pretty traumatic experience.  It’s understandable if she’s scared to reopen that trauma now. She has a right to decide if and how to process it — a right to self-determination. Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at sigal.samuel@vox.com or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! At the same time, her grown child is not wrong for wanting answers today. The desperation felt by this newfound relative of yours is the “moral remainder” of your grandmother’s decision.  As technology shifts over the generations, moral norms shift along with it. When your grandmother gave up the baby for adoption, she had no idea DNA testing would become commonplace — but it has. And as cheap testing kits like 23andMe have exposed all kinds of family secrets, more and more kids who’d been kept in the dark are making their experiences known.  Some were never bothered by their obscured origins, but discover an extra measure of joy and connection once they meet long-lost relatives. Others say they always suffered from an uneasy sense that they’re different from their siblings. Still others say it’s important to know your biological family’s medical history, especially with the advent of precision medicine.     All this has led to an increasing belief that children have a right to know where they came from — a right to self-knowledge.   Take it from Dani Shapiro, author of Inheritance, who found out as an adult that her beloved father was not her biological father. She writes:  The secret that was kept from me for 54 years had practical effects that were both staggering and dangerous: I gave incorrect medical history to doctors all my life. It’s one matter to have an awareness of a lack of knowledge — as many adoptees do — but another altogether not to know that you don’t know. When my son was an infant, he was stricken with a rare and often fatal seizure disorder. There was a possibility it was genetic. I confidently told his pediatric neurologist that there was no family history of seizures.  Some bioethicists, like Duke University’s Nita Farahany, are also building this case. Following the famous proclamation from Ancient Greece — “Know thyself!” — Farahany argues that people have a right to self-knowledge, including when it comes to medical information. She writes that “access to that essential information about ourselves is central to the self-reflection and self-knowledge we need to develop our own personalities.” It helps us shape our own lives and empowers us to make choices about our future. That means that self-knowledge is actually a subset of self-determination — the exact same value that your grandmother is asserting. And it seems only fair for us to acknowledge that if your grandmother is entitled to that, then so is her child.  If both people have a right to self-determination, and their rights are in conflict with each other, then … well … what do you do? Even John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English philosopher who literally wrote the book on liberty, didn’t think that anyone’s right to liberty or self-determination is an absolute right. Instead, it’s a qualified right — the kind that we generally honor but that can be restricted to protect the interests of others.  So it feels appropriate here to strike a balance between your grandmother’s wishes and her child’s. There are a few different ways to do that, but here’s one: You could assure your grandmother that you won’t pressure her to talk to the child or hear any more about her, but you will give the child family medical information and a general understanding of her birth story, including the aspect that might feel most important to her: why she was given up for adoption.  Without mentioning your grandmother’s name or any details that would make it easy for the grown child to track her down, you could say something like, “Your birth mom is one of my relatives. She got pregnant as a teenager and didn’t have the means or support to take care of you. She made the hard choice to give you up for adoption in hopes that you’d have a better life than she could provide. She doesn’t feel comfortable being in contact now, and I feel that I need to respect her wishes and her privacy, but I hope this message brings you at least a little bit of peace.”  Ultimately, you won’t have total control over what your relative does with this information, because internet sleuthing is a force to be reckoned with. And you won’t be able to control whether she feels fully satisfied with what you tell her. That’s a feature of this kind of moral dilemma: You can’t please everyone 100 percent, but you’re doing what you can to honor the values at stake. If you want, you might choose to meet with the grown child without involving your grandmother. Or you might decide that your notion of kinship isn’t rooted in biology and you don’t feel any particular need to bond with someone new to you.  Either way, what I love about Williams’s idea of the “moral remainder” is that it encourages you to view everyone in this tricky situation (including yourself!) compassionately. Regardless of which specific step you take next, you can move forward from that place of compassion. Bonus: What I’m reading 23andMe is floundering, to the point that the company’s CEO is now considering selling it. As Kristen V. Brown notes in the Atlantic, that would mean “the DNA of 23andMe’s 15 million customers would be up for sale, too.” It’s one of the many reasons why I’ll never spit into one of those test tubes. I recently re-read the philosopher Susan Wolf’s 1982 essay “Moral Saints,” and it feels more on-point than ever. Wolf argues that you shouldn’t actually strive to be “a person whose every action is as morally good as possible” — and not just because those people are incredibly boring!  David Brooks is not my usual cup of tea, but I appreciated him writing in the New York Times about how, contrary to popular opinion, “emotion is central to being an effective rational person in the world.” 

Who doesn't love a little early-morning football?

“It’s going to be the same lineup and it’s going to be loud, of course."

“Milton moving slowly but expected to strengthen rapidly,” the center said, noting a “risk of life-threatening impacts increasing for portions of the Florida west coast.”

Israel is bracing for possible terror attacks, including the firing of long-range rockets from Gaza, as the anniversary of October 7 looms on Monday. The post Israel Braces for October 7 Anniversary, Attacks; Terror in Be’er Sheva appeared first on Breitbart.

The Eras Tour helped catapult Taylor Swift's earnings.

If we don’t want more homeless people on sidewalks, we have to invest in proposals like Measure A that stand a chance of resolving this horrible problem.

President Trump has a proven track record for promoting and protecting religious freedom at home and abroad. Kamala Harris has repeatedly advanced an anti-faith agenda.

I don't know who was more surprised.

On December 12, 2015, the 195 country parties to the United Nations’ climate body adopted the Paris Agreement on climate change. The accord was historic, sending a message to governments, boardrooms, clean-tech innovators, civil society, and citizens that the leaders of the world had finally come together to combat climate change.The agreement was groundbreaking in many respects. It cast aside the old paradigm in which climate obligations applied only to developed countries. It articulated strong goals to limit global temperature and greenhouse-gas emissions. It required countries to submit nationally determined targets for reducing emissions, and to do this every five years, with each new target stronger than the previous one. It established a second five-year cycle for a “global stocktake” to see how the world is doing in the aggregate on climate change. It set up a transparency system for countries to report on their progress and for those reports to be reviewed by international experts. And it adopted a hybrid legal arrangement, with legally binding procedural rules complementing the nonbinding emission targets.Overall, the logic of the Paris Agreement was that the rising force of norms and expectations, buttressed by binding procedures, would be effective. It was based on the belief that countries would act with progressively higher ambition because strong climate action would become ever more visibly important to a government’s standing abroad and to its political support at home. Ideally, an effective Paris regime should strengthen norms and expectations around the world; and, in a mutually reinforcing manner, stronger domestic actions in those countries should strengthen the Paris accord.Nearly nine years later, how are we doing, and what more do we need to do? To answer those questions, we need to assess the three main factors currently shaping the climate world. Representatives of the UN Member States sit in attendance in General Assembly Hall for the climate agreement opening ceremony. (Albin Lohr-Jones / Pacific Press / Getty) First, our scientific understanding of risk keeps advancing, and the actual impacts of climate change keep coming at us harder and faster than expected. In the years following the Paris Agreement, the broadly accepted temperature limit shifted from a rise of “well below” 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, which would in turn alter the time frame for reaching “net zero” emissions from around 2070 to around 2050. The shift to 1.5 degrees was triggered by the 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, produced by the UN’s climate-science body, and has been underscored by additional authoritative reports, as well as a cascade of extreme events all over the world.And those events have just kept intensifying. In 2023, Phoenix had 31 consecutive days of temperatures 110 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. In July that year, water temperatures off the Florida Keys were above 90 degrees. Canadian wildfires burned nearly 45 million acres, crushing the country’s previous record of 18 million. In August 2023, Brazil’s winter, the temperature rose to 104 degrees. In 2022, China was scorched by a searing heat wave that lasted more than 70 days, affecting more than 900 million people. That same year, more than 61,000 Europeans died from heat-related stress. In 2024, more brutal heat waves struck far and wide, the most harrowing of which killed 1,300 people during the annual hajj in Mecca, with temperatures as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. If we fail to do what is needed, we will surely compromise our ability to preserve a livable world.Second, progress in the clean-energy revolution—especially with the technologies of solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles, and heat pumps—has been nothing short of spectacular since the Paris Agreement, driven in part by the accord itself. And intensifying innovation is driving this revolution forward, including in the “hardest to abate” sectors, such as heavy industry, shipping, and aviation. And the developing clean-technology system is enormously more efficient and less wasteful than the fossil-fuel system.Third, very real obstacles lie in the way, beyond the inherent challenges of developing breakthrough technology. The main one is that the fossil-fuel industry, which still produces 80 percent of primary energy worldwide, has formidable political clout in the U.S. and abroad, and is doing everything in its power to keep production going as far as the eye can see. Progress on limiting fossil fuels was made late last year at the climate conference in Dubai, which called for a “transitioning away from all fossil fuels … to reach net zero emissions by 2050, in keeping with the science.” Some observers even called Dubai the beginning of the end for fossil-fuel dominance—a hopeful, but at this stage premature, conclusion.[Read: Trump isn’t a climate denier. He’s worse.]The central question now is how to overcome the obstacles to rapid decarbonization, acting both within the Paris regime and outside of it. During their 1985 Geneva Summit on the reduction of nuclear arsenals, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev took a walk during a break in the negotiations. As Gorbachev recalled the story, Reagan abruptly said to him, “What would you do if the United States were suddenly attacked by someone from outer space? Would you help us?’” Gorbachev said, “No doubt about it,” and Reagan answered, “We too.” There is a lesson here.The United States and the Soviet Union were adversaries, armed to the teeth against each other. But as their two presidents imagined an attack from beyond the boundaries of their shared planet, they agreed at once that they would help each other. The international community ought to look at climate change in roughly similar terms, as a threat that demands genuine partnership—something akin to a meteor headed toward Earth, a situation in which we will have the best chance of pulling through if we all pull together.We need a Paris regime built on partnership, not squabbling. We face a genuine crisis. Too many countries still try to pull backwards to the days of a firewall division between developed and developing countries, in order to deflect expectations about reducing emissions. But a focus on how much individual countries should not have to do is the wrong way to defend against a common threat to our planet. The Paris Agreement ensures that countries can set their own targets, but it calls for an approach reflecting a country’s “highest possible ambition.” Next year, all signatories are expected to announce new emission targets for 2035, and all the major emitters will need to deliver on those commitments if we are to keep alive the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. This is true for no country more than China, which accounts for some 30 percent of global emissions, more than all the developed countries put together.China, whose emissions appear to have peaked, ought to adopt a bold target of about 30 percent below that peak level by 2035. But if the past is prologue, China will assert its developing-country status to defend a target far short of that. Yet, for this sophisticated, second-largest economy in the world, with an enormous carbon footprint and unequaled capacity to produce renewable energy, electric vehicles, and so on, hiding behind its traditional status is a tactic past its sell-by date. Smoke billows from a large steel plant as a Chinese labourer works at an unauthorized steel factory, foreground, on November 4, 2016 in Inner Mongolia, China (Kevin Frayer / Getty) To make the Paris regime as effective as it should be, we need to reanimate the High Ambition Coalition that was once so pivotal. The coalition still exists, but it lacks the status it had in Paris, where it used its broad-based power of 100-plus countries, “rich and poor, large and small,” to insist that all nations, especially the major ones, pull their weight in reducing emissions. To revive that coalition, poor and vulnerable countries will need to feel fairly treated, and that will require solving the perennial problem of financial assistance.For a long time in climate negotiations, an angry, trust-depleting relationship between developing and developed countries has persisted over the question of finance. In the past few years, the need to mobilize much larger capital flows to the global South for climate and other global public goods has come into sharper view, with particular focus on deep reform of the World Bank to make it more responsive to the needs of our time.Finance ministries, including the U.S. Treasury Department, tend to be very cautious about taking the big steps needed to overhaul the World Bank and enable it to finance climate-change mitigation and other public goods. But to borrow a phrase that Larry Summers, my old Treasury boss, has used, the risk of inaction on this project far outweighs the risk of going too far. Moreover, addressing this problem would not only help the countries in need but also have the clear geopolitical benefit of strengthening relationships between the U.S. and its allies and the global South.I would also seek to use the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change, an international body launched in 2009 by President Barack Obama, to greater advantage. I would envision an annual, in-person MEF leaders’ meeting to discuss what needs to be done to accelerate decarbonization. I would start each such meeting with a concise report on the latest science, delivered with force by noted experts, so that all leaders are up to date on the urgency of the threat. I would also expand the MEF’s membership to match more closely the G20’s, adding Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the African Union, which would also enable the MEF leaders’ meeting to take place the day after the annual G20 summit.During the Obama years, U.S.-China climate cooperation was enormously important, a positive pillar in our overall relationship. The relationship is more strained now, but that makes reestablishing as much constructive climate collaboration as possible more vital, not less. This is something that John Kerry and John Podesta, as the leaders of the U.S. international climate effort under President Joe Biden, have both sought to do.All of these elements are important, but most central to our effort to contain climate change are political will and human motivation. In the last line of his report on 2011’s UN Climate Change Conference, held in Durban, South Africa, the clean-tech blogger David Roberts wrote that “only when a critical mass within [countries] becomes noisy and powerful enough to push governments into action” will we act at the right speed. He was right. Executing the global transition that we need will be a daunting task under any circumstances, but we have the energy and the talent, we know what policies to deploy, and we can afford it. The open question around the world is the human factor.[Zoë Schlanger: American environmentalism just got shoved into legal purgatory]Political leaders tend to worry about jobs, economic growth, national security, and the next election—and they hesitate to cross powerful interests. Business leaders worry mostly about the bottom line. And as a matter of human nature, people often find it hard both to grasp the urgency of the climate threat, when most days don’t seem immediately threatening, and to avoid inertia in the face of such an overwhelming crisis or giving in to a vague hope that somehow we will muddle through. Add to all of this the challenge in the U.S. and Europe from right-wing populism, which rebels against science, constraints, and bureaucrats.We are also slowed down by those who think of themselves as grown-ups and believe that decarbonization at the speed the climate community calls for is unrealistic—the gauzy pursuit of idealists who don’t understand the real world. But look at what the science is telling us, and witness the crescendo of climate disasters: heat waves, forest fires, floods, droughts, and ocean warming. What realistic assessment are the grown-ups waiting for? (Top) Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. President Ronald Reagan at the 1985 Geneva Summit. (Bottom) Firefighters from the Mountains Restoration Conservation Authority monitor a back burn set near the Line fire in the San Bernardino National Forest outside of Running Springs, Calif., early on Sept. 10, 2024. (Bettmann / Getty; Philip Cheung / NYT / Redux) In the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, no one could have imagined that entire cities of 5 million to 10 million people would be shut down overnight. That would have seemed absurd—until it didn’t. Faced with the nightmarish prospect of a plague raging through their streets, political leaders in 2020 did the unthinkable. That lesson about decisive collective action should guide our response to the climate crisis. However challenging taking action might be, the question that must be asked is Compared with what?We need normative change, a shift in hearts and minds that can demonstrate to political leaders that their own future depends on unequivocal action to protect our world. This prescription may seem a weak reed, but new norms can move mountains. They have the power to define what is right, what is acceptable, what is important, what we expect, what we demand.This kind of shift has already started—decades ago, in fact. The original Earth Day was the product of a new environmental consciousness created by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, and of public horror in 1969 that the Cuyahoga River in Ohio was so polluted it caught fire. In September 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin began working on a nationwide environmental teach-in, hoping to capture the energy young people had shown in protests over Vietnam and civil rights. On April 22, 1970, some 20 million people attended thousands of events across America, and this galvanizing public demand led in short order to the creation, during Richard Nixon’s presidency, of the Environmental Protection Agency (1970), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973), and much more after that.In 1987, broad public concern about the diminishing ozone layer led to the successful Montreal Protocol. In 2010, after the U.S. embassy in Beijing started to publish accurate, real-time information about dangerous air pollution, the city’s citizens began protesting; even China’s autocratic government responded to the public pressure by taking steps to clean up Beijing’s air.Many factors can combine to drive normative change: news footage of extreme events; the technology revolution that makes once-niche products mainstream; large-scale civil-society action; markets’ embrace of clean energy and disinvestment from fossil fuels. As the energy analyst Kingsmill Bond has long argued, the approaching peak of fossil-fuel production will bring overcapacity, lower prices, stranded assets, and a rapid shift of investment to new challengers. All of this will reinforce a sense that clean energy works, is growing, is our future.We need always to keep in mind that climate change is as serious as scientists say it is and nature shows it is. No one who has belittled the issue or assumed that holding the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, or 2.5 ,or even 3, would be okay has turned out to be right. We should accept that 1.5 degrees is the right goal, and we should stay as close to it as possible.We should never slip into the comfort of thinking that we can muddle through. The risks are too dire. As Jared Diamond demonstrated in his 2004 book, Collapse, humans have not always coped with environmental risk: Whole civilizations have disappeared because they failed to recognize and address such crises. Today, we have the advantage of extraordinary technological know-how, but we still have the all-too-human capacity to let the polarized, adversarial character of our societies confound our ability to act.Yet hope has a real basis. The speed of our technological progress gives us a chance to reach our goals or come close. In its Outlook 2023 report, the International Energy Agency declared that, based on what governments are doing and have pledged, global temperature rise can be limited to about 1.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared with the 2.1-degree estimate it made in 2021—a striking sign of the pace at which the clean-energy transition is moving. And, of course, we also have the capacity to do more than governments have so far pledged.The task of building broad, engaged, committed support for climate action is essential. Only that can establish a powerful new norm regarding the need for net-zero emissions. Governments, businesses, and civil societies can do what must be done. And when anyone says the goals are too hard, too difficult, cost too much, require too much effort or too much change, ask them: Compared with what?

Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday touted that her and President Joe Biden's administration was sending $157 million in humanitarian aid to civilians in Lebanon, after announcing just $750 for the immediate needs of Hurricane Helene victims. The post Kamala Harris Touts $157 Million for Civilians in Lebanon, Despite Just $750 for Hurricane Helene Victims appeared first on Breitbart.

Business magnate Elon Musk joined Trump on the rally stage in Butler, Pa., where he compared Trump's "character" after being fired upon at the same site just 12 weeks prior.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is under fire for apparently contradicting herself regarding the use of FEMA funds for illegal immigrants.

SNL/NBCWhen Andy Samberg first returned to Saturday Night Live in the season 50 premiere to play second gentleman Doug Emhoff, fans didn’t realize he’d be bringing his comedy rap group The Lonely Island back with him.For their first digital short on SNL since “Natalie’s Rap 2” in 2018, The Lonely Island returned with a premise even more profane: Samberg and Akiva Schaffer play two entrepreneurs pitching their exciting new business idea: what if there were glory holes, but for sushi?“Hear us out, you got nothing to fear. Sushi Glory Hole is a good idea,” Samberg and Schaffer rap. “So hear us out while we tell you what the concept’s all about: It’s sushi being fed through a hole in the wall… Where you going?”Read more at The Daily Beast.

The U.K. enjoys a bipartisan consensus on phasing out tobacco use. But some see it as a new front in a culture war against the nanny state.

Verbum Dei's president, Father Travis Russell, is determined to get the school back on track after the football team dwindled to 19 healthy players.

The Jets are looking to bounce back against one of the NFL’s best teams thus far. After getting upset by the Broncos at MetLife Stadium, Aaron Rodgers and the 2-2 Jets take on the undefeated Vikings in London on Sunday morning. Minnesota is one of the surprises of the NFL and led by former Jets...

Taylor Swift and Brittany Mahomes will not be involved, however.

We explore a looming change in sports officiating.

The Post's Erich Richter makes his picks and predictions for Week 5 of the NFL season.