U.N. Says an Average of 140 Women Were Killed Every Day of 2023 by a Partner or Relative

Elon Musk, currently the richest person in the world, gave over $130 million to support Donald Trump’s reelection. | Chris Unger/Getty Images President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk have become an inseparable duo. Since Trump’s reelection, the richest man in the world — and one of Trump’s top campaign donors — has been a shadow trailing him at his Florida residence. The tech billionaire has taken center stage in the incoming administration, promising to slash $2 trillion from the federal government’s budget. A whirlwind relationship developing between a politician — in this case, the president-elect — and a financial backer isn’t unusual. What stands out is how much the donor himself is in the spotlight. Tim Walz’s joke that Musk, not JD Vance, was Trump’s running mate, rings more true every day. “We’ve never really seen anyone be that directly connected with a campaign unless they were the candidate,” says Jason Seawright, a political science professor at Northwestern University and co-author of Billionaires and Stealth Politics.  It makes Musk an oddity among his billionaire class, who almost always use their influence quietly.  He’s showing other members of the ultra-wealthy a bold alternative to stealth politics, urged on by a president-elect who has embraced giving billionaires a seat at the table. A private citizen can grab power in full view of the public — as long as they’re rich enough, and have enough fans. “We are in an era that I call ‘in-your-face oligarchy,’” says Jeffrey A. Winters, a professor at Northwestern who researches oligarchs and inequality. Twenty years ago, it was a challenge to get his students to understand that there were oligarchs in the US. Now, he says, “I have a very hard time getting students to accept the idea that there’s democracy.” Buying political power is nothing new – but Musk’s brazenness is different American politics has always been dominated by its most well-heeled citizens, whether by holding office themselves, using their money to get their preferred candidates into office, or helping shape policies. Benefactors are often well-rewarded with access to the levers of government, whether it’s receiving a cushy ambassadorship or even cabinet position, getting generous government contracts, acting as informal advisers, steering controversial foreign policy decisions, or taking on a more shadowy but no less influential role.   While both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris enjoyed an abundance of ultra-rich supporters, just 10 billionaires gave 44 percent of all the money supporting Trump. It’s part of why the word “oligarchy” is being thrown around, although not for the first time. “Going back more than 2,000 years in history, oligarch has always referred to people who are empowered by tremendous wealth,” explains Winters. “That’s always a small part of the population, but they’re able to convert their wealth into political influence.” Musk donated some $130 million to help elect Trump and other Republicans, and he doesn’t have an official appointment in the Trump administration at this point — instead, he’ll be leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE for short) alongside fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. The twin heads of the efficiency commission aim to chop at least $2 trillion in government waste — such as the budgets of pesky regulatory agencies that slow down building and launching rockets. (It’s worth noting that there’s already an agency tasked with trying to ensure the federal government runs efficiently.)  Barbara A. Perry, co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, tells Vox that she can’t think of another example in American history quite like Musk. “It just seems that Musk is taking a much larger role than any other person who would have come close to playing his role,” she says. Musk doesn’t have previous experience in a similar political appointment, nor is he stepping down from any of his companies despite potentially wielding a lot of sway over agencies that regulate his firms. Back in 2016, the big Trump donor drawing scrutiny was hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. The Mercer family gave over $15 million to support Trump’s run, and their considerable investment in the right-wing news site Breitbart was influential in promoting Trump’s presidential candidacy. The parallels to Musk are striking, given his ownership of social media site X and the role it played in spreading right-wing conspiracies and misinformation to voters, as well as the owner’s explicit Trump endorsements. But Mercer’s contributions came behind the scenes. He’s hardly ever given interviews, and little is known about his personal life. That’s the case for the vast majority of wealthy donors — it’s Elon Musk, posting incessantly on X about how he sees the world, who’s the outlier. Musk could be a sign of how billionaire political strategy is changing In Billionaires and Stealth Politics, published in 2018 in the aftermath of the first Trump election, Seawright and fellow Northwestern researchers Matthew J. Lacombe and Benjamin I. Page studied how this tiny subset of the super-rich engaged in political activity. What they found is that while most never speak publicly about their views, conservative billionaires tended to spend more money while speaking less; liberal billionaires spent less, but they were more likely to speak up. Take Mark Cuban, who became one of the most visible billionaire boosters of Harris this year but made a point to say he didn’t donate at all to her campaign. On the flip side, while Musk got all the attention as a Republican megadonor this cycle, the actual top donor was a man you might have never heard of: Timothy Mellon, a banking heir who the public knows little about.  Stealth has pretty much been the modus operandi for as long as rich Americans have been putting their fingers on the scale of democracy — until Musk came along.  Musk isn’t the only vocally partisan conservative billionaire donor today, though — there are also figures like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and crypto investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss who have no qualms about sharing their politics online — but he is the most emblematic of this shift. Musk isn’t just Trump’s financial backer and the media mogul behind an increasingly instrumental arm of right-wing messaging — he’s an influencer with a following that most politicians running for office probably wish they commanded.  Corporate executives today are more than bosses. They’re thought leaders who publish memoirs offering broad lessons on how to succeed in life and are often propped up as idols.  Musk is the prime example. Though he has now lost some of his original admirers, his word is still gospel to a horde of mostly young men who think Musk will fight back against the liberal establishment. It’s spurred on by an ecosystem of social media fan accounts circulating his wisest quotes, idyllic AI-generated images of him achieving fake heroic feats, and above all, by Musk’s own words as he holds forth on his personal X account. On X, Musk currently has over 200 million followers; at a Trump town hall that Musk hosted in October in Pennsylvania, it was clear that at least part of the crowd had come to get a glimpse of the famous billionaire. The nature of Musk’s public persona is important, too: Like Trump, he portrays himself as a populist who understands your frustrations. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was framed as a remedy to “fake news” pushed by legacy media outlets, purporting to create a town square that boosts all voices. According to Musk, even the budget-cut ideas for DOGE will be crowdsourced (with the aid of volunteers willing to work 80-plus hours a week for free) and broadcast on X. The richest person in the world presents as a man of the people. Some might argue that Musk is “no different than the kind of oligarch that we see in many other countries,” says Benjamin Soskis, a historian and senior research associate at the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. “What I think is different about it is that Musk is doing this in the full glare of public regard, and with a kind of presumed democratic legitimacy to it.” For his fans, in other words, Musk’s position as the incoming president’s right-hand man isn’t the dirty maneuvering of a billionaire using money to access power. It reads almost as a “philanthropic commitment” and an example of “do-gooding,” says Soskis. (Musk has famously not been very philanthropic.) If the noblesse oblige of billionaires in the past manifested in founding libraries and hospitals, Musk shows it by claiming to be a voice for the people — a megaphone for their anger and resentment. When asked why a billionaire like Musk might be so comfortable announcing their political worldview, Seawright offers one theory: Maybe there are thresholds of wealth where the consequences — like public backlash or losing a few billion dollars —  just don’t matter that much. If so, that has worrying implications for the trajectory of American society. Our billionaires are certainly enjoying never-before-seen heights of wealth. Tesla’s stock has soared since Election Day, with Musk’s personal net worth now hovering around $300 billion. But it’s worth noting that the birth of the centibillionaire is very recent; Musk, along with many other tech leaders, saw his fortune balloon during the pandemic. In 2019, he was worth a comparatively paltry $22 billion — which is about half of what he paid to buy Twitter in 2022.  Musk is unprecedented simply for the fact that there has never been a political donor, adviser, and celebrity all rolled into one with the gravitational pull of a $300 billion fortune. While wealth has always bought you access in America, Musk is one of the most unsubtle examples we’ve ever seen. And for all the worry one might feel upon witnessing him waltz into the White House, there’s something instructive about it, too. It lays bare the mechanism of power in American democracy in the starkest terms.

So, Woody Johnson is going to find good candidates in the interview process and my selling job to them would begin with the chance to be a legend.

The head of the Phichit province monastery told a local TV station that the use of corpses was part of a "meditation technique" he developed.

Agents seized roughly 170 firearms, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and smoke/marine markers from Carlos Serrano-Restrepo's home.

An elderly New York City man fell to his death during a home invasion after he was seen climbing out of a window to escape and falling onto scaffolding.

The Rams' line is still shaky, third-down efficiency is an issue and the defense could not stop Eagles running back Saquon Barkley. Yet, they can win NFC West.

Rep. Mike Carey, among Ohio Republicans vying for JD Vance's Senate seat, said he's best equipped to implement President-elect Trump's agenda on "day one."

A Palm Desert City Council member and a military veteran implore the Biden administration to designate the Chuckwalla National Monument.

How to make the most of your downtime

Hey, Hollywood, don't throw the baby, or at least the 8-year-old, out with the bathwater. Strong 'Wicked' opening shows family movies are more in demand than ever.

While incoming members pick paint and drapes for their new offices, departing members are shoved into a collective basement space.

Mike Schur found unlikely inspiration for his new Ted Danson comedy in a Chilean documentary. His goal: to make viewers feel like they want to call their moms.

After banning hemp products that contain THC and other intoxicating compounds, California regulators are starting to crack down — catching some retailers by surprise and upending the lucrative market for cannabis-adjacent drinks and gummies.

If you didn’t grow up eating the dish, it may be difficult to understand the allure of unassuming poached chicken and rice. Here are two new specialists in the SGV to check out now.

If Trump's plans for mass deportations penetrate California’s heartland, it almost surely would decimate the workforce farmers rely on to plant and harvest their crops. So, why aren't farmers worried?

The gift of a great story starts here, with titles including picture books and YA. Reese Witherspoon and Trevor Noah are here, but so are some non-celeb authors.

Everything you need to know about the Chargers facing the Baltimore Ravens at SoFi Stadium on Monday night, including start time, TV channel and betting odds.

The young Emmy winner had to learn a lot and face some fears over the five years it took to make the story of real-life, one-legged wrestler Anthony Robles.

'The Franchise' showrunner Jon Brown wanted to capture the over-the-top aspects of superhero movies without losing the humanity of those working on them.

Chargers coach Jim Harbaugh and his brother John, the Ravens' coach, can thank their parents, who have been married 63 years, for a wealth of memories.

L.A. Times readers share their favorite places to walk in Los Angeles, from the Ballona Lagoon nature path to Gloria Molina Grand Park in downtown L.A.

Holiday gatherings can increase the risk of spreading infections. Doctors share tips to keep from getting sick when spending time with family and friends.

The actor has no real career plan, he says, just 'What’s the next good story? Who’s the next good collaborator?' Which led him to creating his Big Things Films production company.

The New York Times faced intense backlash on social media over a headline about Rabbi Zvi Kogan, who was murdered after he was abducted in Dubai last week.

Disgusting. Barbaric. Un-American. These are the words that come to a reader's mind when he thinks of the anti-trans bullying of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride.

Behind the scenes of winning over Oscar voters, the fight for L.A.’s best screening rooms has become a critical — and costly — part of awards season campaigns.

The Haitian filmmaker’s “Ernest Cole: Lost and Found” draws parallels between apartheid South Africa, segregation in the United States and the modern world.

Actors Ethan Herisse and Brandon Wilson sometimes were asked to wear a camera rig while delivering their lines, to create the point-of-view approach of the film.

Video game actors, visual effects artists, animation workers and intimacy coordinators are all making big moves in the Hollywood labor space.

Groundwater pumping has been causing the land to sink at a record pace in California's San Joaquin Valley. New research suggests ways of addressing the problem.

If humanity is gone in 100 years, it'll be because a few leaders have the power to kill billions of people with nuclear weapons. Let's address that now.

A Trump transition spokesperson said the president-elect had a 'resounding' victory giving him a 'mandate.' A reader challenges that assertion.

Moo Deng, the pygmy hippo who rose to fame on social media, is still attracting visitors and licensing deals, but celebrity can be fleeting. How long will it take for another cute baby animal to wear her crown?

The Commanders didn’t look like themselves against the Cowboys. They looked like an ugly vision of the past.

The Giants decided not to keep Saquon Barkley, and now the Eagle is an MVP candidate as another spectacular performance, 255 yards rushing, ruins the Rams.

Good friends Hugh Jackman, Shawn Levy and Ryan Reynolds bucked the downward multiverse trend by making the first R-rated MCU movie the biggest-grossing R-rated film ever.

Were celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz confirmed to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, his job would involve interacting with giants of the industry that contributed to his wealth.

There’s a deep neural connection between gratitude and generosity. | Getty Images Over Thanksgiving, in between mouthfuls of turkey and sweet potato pie, many of us will be asking ourselves: What are we grateful for? Taking a moment to practice gratitude like this isn’t an empty holiday tradition. It’s good for our mental and physical health. And here’s another thing: It can actually change our brains in ways that make us more altruistic — just in time for Giving Tuesday. The past two decades have seen a flurry of research on gratitude, beginning in the early 2000s with a series of landmark papers by Robert Emmons, Michael McCullough, and other psychologists. In recent years, we’ve learned through several scientific studies that there’s a deep neural connection between gratitude and giving — they share a pathway in the brain — and that when we’re grateful, our brains become more charitable. Christina Karns, a neuroscientist at the University of Oregon, is one of the leading researchers in this field. In 2017, she wondered what happens in the brain when you receive a gift versus when you give one — and whether the neural response differs depending on your character. So she placed study participants in a brain scanner and had them watch as a computer moved real money into their own account or gave it to a food bank instead. Karns described what she learned: It turns out that the neural connection between gratitude and giving is very deep, both literally and figuratively. A region deep in the frontal lobe of the brain, called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, is key to supporting both. Anatomically, this region is wired up to be a hub for processing the value of risk and reward; it’s richly connected to even deeper brain regions that provide a kick of pleasurable neurochemicals in the right circumstances.  The participants I’d identified as more grateful and more altruistic via a questionnaire [showed] a stronger response in these reward regions of the brain when they saw the charity gaining money. It felt good for them to see the food bank do well. Next, Karns wanted to know whether, by changing how much gratitude people felt, she could change the way the brain reacts to giving and getting. So she split participants into two groups. Over three weeks, one group journaled about the things they were grateful for, while the other group journaled about other (non-gratitude-specific) happenings in their lives. The Vox guide to giving The holiday season is giving season. This year, Vox is exploring every element of charitable giving — from making the case for donating 10 percent of your income, to recommending specific charities for specific causes, to explaining what you can do to make a difference beyond donations. You can find all of our giving guide stories here. The people in the gratitude-journaling contingent reported experiencing more thankfulness. What’s more, the reward regions of their brain started responding more to charitable giving than to gaining money for themselves. As Karns writes: Practicing gratitude shifted the value of giving in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It changed the exchange rate in the brain. Giving to charity became more valuable than receiving money yourself. After the brain calculates the exchange rate, you get paid in the neural currency of reward, the delivery of neurotransmitters that signal pleasure and goal attainment. These are striking (though likely not permanent) effects. Of course, we still need more research to fully understand the brain mechanisms underlying gratitude, giving, and how they relate. But for those of us who don’t always find resonant the old adage that “giving is better than receiving,” Karns’s results, if true, offer a useful amendment: Giving really can be better — if you make it so. You can proactively choose to retrain your brain so it gets more pleasure out of giving. Here are some effective ways to cultivate gratitude If increasing people’s gratitude is an effective way to increase their charitableness, then maybe it’s worth nudging people to cultivate more gratitude. For now, we’ve got at least one such nudge built into our calendar: Thanksgiving. Many religious traditions also include daily practices meant to foster gratitude, and scientific studies have shown that some — like prayer — really do have that effect. If practicing gratitude isn’t yet part of your daily routine and you’d like to cultivate it throughout the year and not only on Thanksgiving, here are a few practices that researchers have found to be effective in boosting thankfulness. Gratitude journaling: This simple practice — jotting down things you’re grateful for — has gained popularity over the past few years. But studies show there are more and less effective ways to do it. Researchers say it’s better to write in detail about one particular thing, really savoring it, than to dash off a superficial list of things. They recommend that you try to focus on people you’re grateful to, because that’s more impactful than focusing on things, and that you focus on events that surprised you, because they generally elicit stronger feelings of thankfulness. Researchers also note that writing in a gratitude journal once or twice a week is better for your well-being than doing it every day. In one study, people who wrote once a week for six weeks reported increased happiness afterward; people who wrote three times a week didn’t. That’s because our brains have an annoying habit called hedonic adaptation. “We adapt to positive events quickly, especially if we constantly focus on them,” Emmons explains. “It seems counterintuitive, but it is how the mind works.” Gratitude letters and visits: Another practice is to write a letter of gratitude to someone. Research shows it significantly increases your levels of gratitude, even if you never actually send the letter. And the effects on the brain can last for months. In one study, subjects who participated in gratitude letter writing expressed more thankfulness and showed more activity in their pregenual anterior cingulate cortex — an area involved in predicting the outcomes of our actions — three months later. Some psychologists, like Martin Seligman, Sonja Lyubomirsky, and Jeffrey Froh, have studied a variation on the gratitude letter practice by having participants write a letter to someone they’ve never properly thanked, then visit the person and read the letter aloud to them. A 2009 study led by Froh found that teens experienced a big increase in positive emotions after doing a gratitude visit — even two months later. Experiential consumption: There’s another way to foster gratitude and thwart hedonic adaptation that seems especially relevant to the upcoming gift-buying season: Spend your money on experiences, not things. The Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley summarizes a major study on experiential consumption like this: Across six experiments, this study found that people felt and expressed more gratitude following a purchase of an experience (e.g., concert tickets or meals out) than a purchase of a material good (e.g., clothing or jewelry). According to the researchers, these experiments suggest that “as a naturalistic behavior that is relatively resistant to adaptation, experiential consumption may be an especially easy way to encourage the experience of gratitude.”  In other words, if you’re going to buy something special this holiday season, consider making it an experience. The resultant gratitude is more likely to stick around in the brain — and where gratitude abounds, altruism may follow. Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.

Dana White, President-elect Donald Trump, and Elon Musk look on ringside during the UFC 309 event at Madison Square Garden on November 16, 2024 in New York City. | Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC A chief campaign promise from President-elect Donald Trump — which has also been echoed by his secretary of defense pick Pete Hegseth — centers on getting rid of military generals who they deem as too “woke.”  “I would fire them. You can’t have woke military,” Trump said in a Fox News interview in June summing up his views.  “Any general that was involved — general, admiral, whatever — that was involved in any of the DEI woke shit, it’s got to go,” Hegseth said in a podcast interview released in November that was conducted prior to his nomination.  They claim the military has been so distracted by efforts to promote diversity in its ranks that it’s negatively affected the body’s readiness for conflicts as well as its ability to recruit new soldiers. Pentagon officials have refuted these statements, however. And a 2022 RAND Corporation report laid out key ways that leveraging diversity could be beneficial to the military and its ability to develop new technology and build stronger teams. According to many national security experts, there’s scant evidence to support Trump and Hegseth’s claims.  That said, if Trump wants to fire generals once he takes office, he can.  “The president has unilateral authority to fire general officers,” says Katherine Kuzminski, the director of the military, veterans, and society program at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank specializing in national security. Under the wide-ranging powers presidents are given by the Constitution as the country’s commander-in-chief, they can remove generals at will over a loss of confidence in their leadership. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the incoming administration is already laying the groundwork for such firings. Per a draft executive order the publication obtained, the Trump White House is considering establishing a “warrior board” of former generals and military officials who will be dedicated to reviewing current military leaders. Following their review, the panel will reportedly determine which officers they’d like to remove, with the aim of retiring them at their existing rank within 20 days.  Trump has only spoken in sweeping terms about changes to military leadership, so it’s unclear exactly how many high-ranking troops might be fired. However, were the president-elect to follow through on his promises — particularly at a larger scale —  they could have a disruptive effect on military operations. A mass firing would need to be followed with the elevation of lots of new leaders, some of whom might lack the experience of their predecessors. Several national security experts also told Vox they worry about the message a mass firing would send — including the idea that military officials have to express political views in line with Trump’s in order to hold onto their jobs.  Trump has avenues to “fire” generals There are two ways Trump could get rid of top generals. The first is to issue an explicit call to resign. The second is the removal of a military leader’s assignment. For example, three- and four-star generals, the highest levels an officer can achieve, attain that rank because they’re given an assignment — like being named chief of staff of a military branch — and have responsibilities related to it. If that assignment was revoked, they’d revert to two-star rank. Typically, leaders who lose assignments retire, military experts note.  That’s because individuals maintain their title and benefits upon retirement. Those who retire at a higher rank stand to receive thousands more in retirement pay than those who revert to a lower rank. So, a three-star general about to lose their assignment would likely retire in order to hold onto better retirement benefits than a two-star one.  “If you have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or another senior military leader holding a particular position of command or responsibility, the president can relieve them pretty much on a very vague notion that he’s lost confidence in their ability to lead,” Victor Hansen, a New England Law school professor and former judge advocate general in the Army, tells Vox.  There’s little recourse for generals to appeal a decision to remove them from their assignments, experts tell Vox. And since military officers serve at what’s often described as “the pleasure of the president,” there’s not much Congress can do to intervene beyond holding hearings to raise awareness about potential staffing changes. In the less likely scenario that a general chooses not to retire from the military — and chooses to go back to a lower rank — the president could also try to kick them out of the armed services completely, if he wanted them fully out of the military. The process for doing so is more complicated, however.  In the 186os, Congress approved legislation that limits a president’s ability to entirely dismiss someone from the military. Under this policy, the individual in question needs to either face a sentence from a court-martial to be removed, have a court-martial sentence commuted, or be dismissed during a time of war by the president.  Because the policy is relatively vague — including in what it defines as a “time of war” — the president still has significant leeway to terminate individuals, but any attempt to do so could face court challenges.  If Trump does remove senior military leaders, he also wouldn’t be able to replace them on his own. Nomination of new generals of three- and four-star status requires Senate confirmation. Any attempt to follow through on these promises would set a disturbing new precedent There are past examples of presidents firing generals, though there isn’t a precedent of the type of wholesale purge Trump has alluded to.  Previously, President Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur due to disagreements they had over the handling of the Korean War. President Barack Obama also fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal after he made disparaging comments about Obama’s approach to the war in Afghanistan and criticized other members of the White House.  Trump’s plans would be unique because they aren’t founded upon a general’s specific approach to a military conflict and would be tied more to their perceived political ideology, given Republicans tend to have a far more negative view of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives than Democrats. The scope of potential firings could also make his approach different.  Some military experts warn that a mass firing could create the very problem Trump’s allies say they are trying to solve: that removing lots of leaders at once could hurt readiness.  “It would be very disruptive,” Hansen told Vox. “There’s ongoing operational combatant commanders. They’re in the thick of it all over the world now.” And other national security experts told Vox that forcing military leaders to ascribe to a certain views on diversity could be seen as a personal loyalty test for Trump, given his stated positions.  “There’s the fear that these processes will be perverted by an administration that’s bent on revenge, retaliation, and on vetting officers based on loyalty tests to the president versus loyalty to the Constitution,” says Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School and a former active duty judge advocate in the Air Force. “That’s how we become an authoritarian state when you have the most powerful military in the world that’s swearing an oath… not to their Constitution and to the American people, but to a person.”

Enraged Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres slammed the administration of Mayor Eric Adams and Albany-led Gov. Kathy Hochul as "complicit" in madman Ramon Rivera's murderous stabbing spree.

When the numbers are sorted out in real terms, Uncle Sam actually has less debt than years past, not more. 

Biden agreed to an eight-year ban but Trump could try to fight it

Vaccines, crypto and TikTok for starters

There are some 2,500 turkey farms across the U.S. producing millions of turkeys for the 90% of Americans that serve a Thanksgiving turkey.

"The odds of beating lung cancer are increasingly good as time goes on," said Dr. Daniel Sterman, the division director for pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health and NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

This was malicious.

There are low points and then there are low points that leave you wondering if all hope is lost.

The D.C. Council voted to make right turns at red lights illegal starting in 2025. But the mayor’s administration is resisting a wholesale ban.