Partisanship Is Biden’s Only Choice After the Supreme Court Leak - With the impending evisceration of Roe v. Wade, the President must contend with the reality of a broken system. - link
Scooping the Supreme Court - The first Roe v. Wade leaks happened fifty years ago. - link
What J. D. Vance’s Victory in the Ohio Republican Primary Means for Trumpism - The “Hillbilly Elegy” author will be a strong favorite in the race for the U.S. Senate, where he would become one of its youngest and most controversial members. - link
Can Motherhood Be a Mode of Rebellion? - In “Essential Labor,” Angela Garbes argues that care work should be public and universal. - link
Sunday Reading: Abortion Rights and the Courts - From the archive: a selection of pieces about abortion rights and the courts. - link
From Vox
The philosopher who warned us about loneliness and totalitarianism -
Hannah Arendt. | Fred Stein Archive/Archive Photos/Getty Images
Revisiting Hannah Arendt’s ideas about social isolation and mass resentment.
If you asked me to name the most important political theorist of the 20th century, my answer would be Hannah Arendt.
You could make arguments for other philosophers — John Rawls comes to mind — but I always come back to Arendt. She’s probably best known for her reporting on the 1961 trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, and for coining the phrase “the banality of evil,” a controversial claim about how ordinary people cancommit extraordinarily evil acts.
Like all the great thinkers from the past, Arendt understood her world better than most, and she remains an invaluable voice today. Arendt was born into a German-Jewish family in 1906, and she lived in East Prussia until she was forced to flee the Nazis in 1933. She then lived in Paris for the next eight years until the Nazis invaded France, at which point she fled a second time to the United States, where she lived the rest of her life as a professor and a public intellectual.
Arendt’s life and thought were shaped by her refugee experiences and by the horrors of the Holocaust. In massively ambitious books like The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition, she tried to make sense of the political pathologies of the 20th century. Reading her today can be a little disorienting. On the one hand, the way she writes, the regimes she describes, the technologies she’s worried about — it all feels very distant, from a totally different world, and she does have blind spots, namely on identity and race, that are glaring today.
And yet, at the same time, the threats she identifies and her insights about our inner lives seem as relevant today as they were 70 years ago. After Donald Trump was elected in 2016, her 1951 book on totalitarianism was selling at 16 times its normal rate.
So I reached out to Lyndsey Stonebridge, a humanities professor at the University of Birmingham, for a recent episode of Vox Conversations. Stonebridge has written twobooks about Arendt’s legacy and just finished a third about her life and ideas, coming out early next year. We talk about the relationship between loneliness and totalitarianism, what it means to really think, and what happens when the space for genuine political participation disappears.
Below is an excerpt, edited for length and clarity. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow Vox Conversations on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Sean Illing
Arendt was a political theorist who spent a lot of time thinking about loneliness, which seems like a subject for psychology, not political theory. Why did Arendt consider loneliness to be a political problem?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
It’s important not to separate loneliness from the material conditions that produce it. She’s talking about things like the disillusionment of people with the elites who are running Europe, unemployment, the end of the bourgeois dream, inflation — all these things. And like other thinkers, she understood loneliness as this peculiarly modern problem. It’s a problem that comes with individualism. It’s a problem that comes with capitalism. It’s a problem that comes with modernity.
Karl Marx will talk about alienation. Max Weber will talk about disenchantment. Simone Weil, another brilliant woman thinker who doesn’t get nearly enough attention, will also talk about uprootedness in the same way as Hannah Arendt. But [Arendt] talks about loneliness as a distinct modern problem.
When she finally gets to loneliness, she’s already been in America for 10 years and she’s looking in two directions. She looks both to Nazi totalitarianism, which just ended, but also to Soviet totalitarianism, which is still going mightily strong at the time. And she also looks toward her new home in America.
What she sees everywhere she looks is that loneliness is the result of a lack of a common ground of experience. This is what she’s getting at when she writes, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, in other words, the reality of experience, and the distinction between true and false … people for whom those distinctions no longer exist.”
Sean Illing
In her book on totalitarianism, Arendt talks about the emergence of “the masses,” which is distinct from what we might think of as classes or interest groups, because those are groups that are by definition fighting for some common interest. She’s talking about the rise of an “unorganized mass” of “mostly furious individuals” with nothing in common except for their contempt for the present order. She calls this “negative solidarity” and it’s the raw material of totalitarianism, because it’s a world without connection and friendship, where the only basis of collective action is some kind of awful combination of anger and desperation.
How did the world get so lonely in the first place for her? Was it just the rise of capitalism and individualism?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
Yeah, it’s that, but also much more. When I was re-reading Origins of Totalitarianism a couple of months ago, I was astonished by how often the word “hate” came into her conversation about the creation of the mass. She noticed that it’s really easy to work with people’s anger and whip up a mob, and she has this great statement in the book about the alliance between the mob and the elite and how the elite are quite good at spotting and using the hate that’s already there.
I mean, she’s a historian, so she’s going to say it is things like unemployment. It is things like not being able to keep your home. And when you look at the early 20th century and look at those rates of inflation and unemployment, and then you have the World War and the civil wars across Europe, and then you have miss migration and so on, we’re not just talking about some kind of ennui here. This is raw, real stuff. It’s easy to raise a mob in these conditions. You’re starting with real anger.
This is the creation of the mass and it isn’t just fascism. This isn’t just populism. This is totalitarianism proper in Arendt’s mind. She says at one point, and this is a quote that’s resonated with me for a few years now, that “the masses’ escape from reality is a verdict against the world in which they’re forced to live.” Often the question is, well, how can people be so stupid? How can anyone fall for this? That’s the wrong way to think about it. Totalitarian politics is a verdict against the world in which people are forced to live. It’s a slap in the face. It’s a finger up against the real conditions of existence.
People will often refer to the masses as if they’re gullible and stupid, which on the one hand is just terrible politics. But on the other hand, it’s actually stupid. I mean, people aren’t stupid. A term that’s just as important as loneliness is cynicism. Totalitarianism works through cynicism. It’s crucial because it allows people to say, “They’re all the same, it’s all bullshit, isn’t it? It’s just politics, isn’t it?” What cynicism allows you to do is be gullible and disbelieving at the same time.
Sean Illing
Arendt thought that before a totalitarian ideology could overwhelm reality, it had to first ruin people’s relationship with themselves and others by making them so skeptical and so cynical that they could no longer rely upon their own judgment. So there’s that part of it.
And then she imagines thinking as much more than an activity. She imagines it as a way of being. It is obviously something we do with ourselves, but the real gift of thinking isn’t all the great ideas and grand theories that intellectuals come up with. The gift of thinking is that as long as you’re doing it, you have the capacity to judge. Why is that so critical?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
So let’s just start with thinking, because getting from thinking to judgment is tricky in Arendt. Thinking, for her, is radically democratic. Everyone, she says, has that dialogue with themselves — not all the time, because obviously if you stop to think about what you’re doing all the time, you’d never get out of bed. But a lot of the time, we all have the capacity to think.
We walk around the street. We lose ourselves in our thoughts, and being lost in thought is a gift for Arendt. She says this isn’t time-wasting. This isn’t frivolous. This is what thinking is and we need to take it seriously. She has this beautiful quote where she says, “What makes loneliness so unbearable is the loss of one’s own self, which can be realized in solitude, but confirmed in its identity only by the trusting and trustworthy company of my equals.”
Solitude is very different from loneliness. Solitude is where I go to hear myself think, where I re-gather my thoughts, which makes me fit to return to the world, because I’m not clicking on a bloody “like” or “dislike” or I’m not following another pattern. I am thinking for myself, which, when things are really bad, is all we have.
But going back to judging, she argues that without the ability to think, there can not be any judgment. When she really saw that is when she looked at the Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 in the courtroom: a self-important man chattering away, talking self-importantly, not even realizing who he was facing — the relatives and survivors of people he had murdered — and he just spoke in cliches. The longer she listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was totally connected with his inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of someone else.
Sean Illing
Arendt fled Nazism twice and eventually landed in New York in 1941. What did she make of America when she got here? Did she think we were lonely? Did she think Americans were thinking in ways that might help them avoid the totalitarian horrors she left behind in Europe?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
She had two visions of America. I often refer to Hannah Arendt having pigeon eyes because she tended to look at both sides of life. On the one hand, she was concerned about American culture, because she saw in the rise of consumer culture a tendency toward social conformity that had already been there.
When she arrived in America, she wrote to Karl Jaspers, her old teacher, and said, “It’s amazing. I can’t understand why a culture that has such a brilliant political foundation can be so socially conservative.” The more time she spent in America, the more worried she was about public relations and consumer capitalism and how that was taking America further and further away from what she understood to be its revolutionary tradition.
Sean Illing
She lays all this out in a speech shortly after the Vietnam War ended, right?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
Yeah, the last paper that she published was based on a talk that she gave in 1975. She was asked to speak a few weeks after the fall of Saigon, and she says, “this is what America has to face: It’s gone further and further away from itself into a culture in which politics is marketing, in which politics is PR.” For her, the fall of Saigon revealed that America had just suffered a humiliating and outright defeat.
Then she listed the things that led up to that. She talked about the Pentagon Papers and how they revealed that there was no purpose to that war other than maintaining the fiction that America was an all-powerful free nation — a fiction, by the way, that was good enough for other people’s children to die for. Watergate showed that this whole thing was being cooked up by a bunch of second-rate crooks. This was politics. This was American politics.
She insisted that we had to recognize that reality. And the reality was that America was not great and free and wonderful, it was not that powerful. We had just suffered a catastrophic loss, and we had jeopardized our politics at the same time. That’s what she called the “big lie,” a phrase that was picked up again when Trump pushed his own big lie about the election. She said that this is how totalitarianism works. You just invent an outrageous big lie and you stick to it.
Sean Illing
Would she say the algorithms are doing the thinking for us today?
Lyndsey Stonebridge
Yeah, she would. You know, Arendt was often appalling on American race relations. She didn’t get Black America at all. But what she would’ve liked about Black Lives Matter, what she liked about the student movement at the time, was that it demonstrated the power of free people acting in concert, and she thought that would always be the saving grace because it was about the possibility of new beginnings.
What she would’ve thought was tragic was everything being algorithmized into social media because then you don’t get the very messy business of politics, which is about sitting in rooms with people who are really pissy and annoying and trying to get something done. It’s not about clicking on theories. You actually have to deal with the messy reality of politics and action. What really would’ve appalled her today is the hemorrhaging of so much political energy.
Biden’s 3 choices on student loans -
A person wearing a medical jacket holds a sign during a Cancel Student Debt rally outside the US Department of Education. | Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty
As liberal pressure builds on Joe Biden to cancel some student loan debt, here are options he might consider.
Before abortion rights seized the national spotlight this week, student loans, and competing proposals for how to handle the nearly $1.7 trillion of debt owed by more than 40 million Americans, were at the top of the White House’s agenda. President Joe Biden seems to be warming up to a plan to cancel at least some amount of debt before the current pause on loan payments expires in September — just weeks before the midterm elections.
Biden was never a big fan of using the presidency to cancel debt, but after meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week and facing plummeting approval ratings in an election year, reportssuggest that action is coming. His press secretary and chief of staff have both said that he’ll announce a plan, or extend the current payment pause again to have more time to make a decision.
Biden has already extended the pause four times (former president Donald Trump issued the first pause, then extended it twice), amounting to about $200 billion worth of savings, but pressure from liberal activists and Democratic lawmakers is building. Student loan experts told Vox it’s important to use two frames to understand what kind of debt relief is coming: the amount of money that would be forgiven and who receives that forgiveness.
Progressives want Biden to go big, pushing for the maximum amount of forgiveness with the lightest eligibility requirements. They say the stakes are high for Biden and his party, given the high likelihood that Democrats lose control of Congress after elections this year—in part because of low turnout from Democratic voters in midterm elections and lackluster enthusiasm from activist-minded young voters and other members of the party base.
The first scenario: Biden cancels up to $10,000 of student loans
This seems to be a likely option. In the 2020 Democratic primaries, Biden said he supported congressional action to eliminate up to $10,000 of student loans, while his rivals to the left argued for more ambitious proposals. Reports suggest he has since become more amenable to using executive action to cancel federal loans, but he doesn’t seem likely to implement this option without some conditions.
“[T]he goal, right, is to make sure it’s targeted at people who need help the most,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last week. Administration officials have been debating those eligibility requirements, which could include an income-based limit using tax returns or pay stubs (likely to be a $125,000 income cap), whether the institution a borrower attended was a public or private school, the kind of loan that was taken out, and whether the loan was used for undergraduate or graduate studies.
The move would definitely provide relief, canceling out debt for about 32 percent of borrowers, or about 13 million people, according to an analysis prepared for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) by scholars for the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank. Two million Black borrowers would see their debt erased, and among those borrowers who now owe more than they did when they took out a loan, this level of relief would zero out the debt of 14 percent of those borrowers.
But the average student debt that Americans hold is about $30,000 — meaning the vast majority of debt holders would still be on the hook for payments. Any amount of forgiveness is unpopular with conservative figures, and progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-NY) argue that the figure wouldn’t make a meaningful amount of difference for many people. And the $10,000 figure would cost about $373 billion to roll out— about as much as the amount the federal government has spent on welfare (the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program) in the last 20 years.
Still, this move has broad support, including among young people, and if canceling any amount of student debt contributes to inflation, this option inflicts the least damage.
The second scenario: Biden cancels between $10,000 and $50,000 of student loans
This option seems a little less likely, but not out of the question. Biden has said he is looking at under $50,000 of forgiveness per person, about what Warren and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have demanded.
Biden likely wouldn’t go to the maximum dollar amount here and would probably stick to the $125,000 income cap, experts told me. But any additional $10,000 in relief over the first $10,000 would make massive differences for the least well-off borrowers, according to the Roosevelt authors: “Every dollar of student debt cancellation counts, but bigger is better for advancing racial equity and economic security,” Charlie Eaton, an assistant professor at UC Merced, and four other scholars write.
With $20,000 of relief, student loan debt for half of borrowers, about 20 million people, would be erased. Each additional $10,000 increase results in nearly an additional 10 percent increase in debt-free borrowers. But that full $50,000 figure would cost about $1 trillion — more than has been spent on Pell Grants or housing assistance since 2000 — and has lower though broad support among Democrats, independents, and young people. It would also likely worsen inflation somewhat, though not as much as full debt cancellation.
The third scenario: Biden cancels all student loan debt for everyone, or for borrowers with more than $50,000 of debt
This option has extremely low odds of happening, not only because Biden has said that more than $50,000 of relief is off the table. The full $1.7 trillion price tag would be more than the federal government has spent on either the earned income tax credit or unemployment insurance since 2000, and would increase the inflation rate by between 0.1 and 0.5 percentage points over a 12-month period, according to the fiscally conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Universal debt cancellation would also disproportionatelybenefit a lot of the wealthiest Americans, since more than half of outstanding debt is owed by people with graduate degrees.
Still, progressives are pushing for this option hardest, and groups like the Student Debt Crisis Center are calling for a suspension of any eligibility requirements or applications. Herein lies a tension: Targeting relief at all goes a long way toward making sure the lowest-income borrowers get the bulk of the help, but the Department of Education lacks the means to implement a massive screening effort to review applications. Right now, the Department is already struggling to implement smaller, targeted relief efforts the Biden administration has already rolled out, according to Adam Minsky, an independent student debt lawyer.
“Even if it’s fairly broad [requirements], there are a lot of legitimate concerns that some sort of means testing or other mechanisms to limit eligibility could be a huge problem administratively,” he said. “The Department of Education is already strapped trying to rapidly implement all of these changes, and you’re going to add something else on top of that that potentially could impact millions and millions of borrowers.”
Inaction seems unlikely, but any of these moves is a political gamble. Though some kind of relief polls well, it is not the top concern of most voters. As the Atlantic’s David Frum has written, student-loan forgiveness carries the risk of being seen as “a tax on the voters whom the Democratic Party most desperately needs to regain,” non-college-educated and working-class Americans, while also slowing efforts to combat inflation and only leaving some of the most progressive members of his party happy.
Regardless of which path is chosen, Natalia Abrams, the president of the Student Debt Crisis Center, told me progressives will have won at least one battle. The president’s legal authority to cancel student debt is an open question, but “if this happened, President Biden will be agreeing that the President and the Department of Education do have the authority to cancel student debt,” Abram said. “We can continue to push for more. We can agree that this is a lever and if they can cancel $10,000, they can cancel $50,000. And then they can cancel all of it.”
The EU can’t quite get it together on a Russian oil embargo -
Can the European Union effectively say goodbye to Russian oil? | Pau Barrena/AFP via Getty Images
Even if an embargo takes effect, Russia may not feel it much in the short term.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a proposal this week for the European Union to impose a gradual embargo on Russian oil as part of its harshest sanctions package yet. The biggest obstacle to such a move? The bloc has yet to agree on when and how those controls will be instituted — not only signaling disunity in the bloc’s response to the invasion of Ukraine, but also potentially softening the embargo’s intended economic blow, at least in the short term.
Von der Leyen, who heads the legislative arm of the EU, announced the plan as part of a broader sanctions package, which includes banning Russian propaganda outlets from broadcasting in the EU, imposing individual sanctions on Russian generals involved in the massacre at Bucha and the siege at Mariupol in Ukraine, and removing three banks, including SberBank — Russia’s largest — from the SWIFT payments system. EU member nations like Germany previously resisted the call to cut off Russian oil, citing the damage it could have on their own economies; von der Leyen addressed those concerns, saying, “Let us be clear: it will not be easy. Some Member States are strongly dependent on Russian oil. But we simply have to work on it.”
Von der Leyen further explained that the embargo will apply to “all Russian oil, seaborne and pipeline, crude and refined,” and that the EU will eliminate its dependence on Russian oil in “an orderly fashion,” by “[phasing] out Russian supply of crude oil within six months and refined products by the end of the year.” But shortly after the announcement, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia piped up with concerns that they wouldn’t have enough time to transition away from Russian oil before their extended deadlines— which would wreak havoc on their economies. Hungary, whose leader Viktor Orbán has maintained ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, threatened to reject the EU’s sanctions package should Hungary not be permitted to continue importing Russian crude oil via pipelines. Since EU proposals require unanimity from all member states to enact, Hungary’s veto would torpedo the whole package.
And Greece, Malta, and Cyprus brought up issues of their own, Reuters reported Friday. Those nations have the largest shipping fleets in the EU; they raised concerns about the effect the embargo would have on their shipping industries. Greek tankers in particular shipped about half of all Russian oil exports in the weeks following the invasion.
“We are against the Russian invasion and of course in favor of sanctions. But these sanctions should be targeted, and not selective in serving some member states and leaving others exposed,” Cyprus’s President Nicos Anastasiades said at a press conference.
As of this weekend, negotiations are ongoing to turn around a sanctions package that meets the needs of all member nations, but it’s unclear when the bloc will agree on a final deal — and why von der Leyen announced the package before all states were in agreement.
Vox made several attempts to reach the European Commission for comment on the status of the negotiations, but did not receive a response by press time.
This is the EU’s sixth sanctions package — and its most complicated yet
As von der Leyen said, this is the most significant and complex sanctions package the EC is poised to impose on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. That means engaging in difficult negotiations and balancing competing needs and priorities.
Upon Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, “there were calls for an embargo almost immediately,” Thane Gustafson, a political science professor at Georgetown University and author of the book Klimat: Russia in the age of Climate Change, told Vox on Saturday. “It’s taken some time to put things on the drawing board.” Given the challenge of getting all 27 member states on board with an oil embargo, Wednesday’s announcement actually came about fairly quickly; but that also indicates that EC members and leadership are “playing this by ear,” Gustafson said, hence the outcry from Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and others.
Those nations don’t have energy alternatives to sustain their economies as of right now, which is why Hungary and Slovakia were initially offered an additional year — until the end of 2023 — to comply with the embargo. Hungary has requested an exemption to the import of crude oil by pipeline, and Slovakia and the Czech Republic are arguing for longer transition periods, according to the Financial Times. Although the details are still under discussion, reporting from Reuters on Friday indicated that the EC will extend the timelines for those countries to wean themselves off of Russian oil and provide assistance for refinery upgrades.
“The key thing is to bring the Hungarians on board,” Gustafson said. “There will be bargaining both ways,” he told Vox. That’s because of the EC principle of unanimity, not because Hungary — or, for that matter, Slovakia or the Czech Republic — consume enough Russian oil for their participation in the ban to matter in an economic sense, since Hungarian and Slovak imports account for only about 6 percent of the EU’s Russian oil imports, according to Reuters.
Will these sanctions deliver the intended blow to the Russian economy?
While Gustafson believes that there will be a decision on the oil embargo, “in the near term, it’s going to be a muted blow.” For one, there are still nations that will purchase Russian oil in the short term — although eventually, Gustafson told Vox, Russia will run out of the capacity to ship or store enough oil to make up for the losses from the EU embargo, thus forcing the industry to slow production, resulting in prices being driven down.
The proposed ban is a major shift from EU policy just two months ago, when the bloc refused to join the full US embargo on Russian energy products. At that time, the bloc unveiled a plan to cut down on natural gas dependence by two-thirds by the end of this year; Wednesday’s announcement didn’t address that pledge or the topic of natural gas at all.
The natural gas question is complex, certainly, and Russia has been able to weaponize the resource, cutting off flows to Poland and Bulgaria for their refusal to buy it with rubles last month. Part of the issue, Gustafson explained, is that natural gas exports are governed by long-term contracts which can employ “take-or-pay” clauses — as in, a country either takes the product or pays for a specific amount even if it doesn’t take the gas. Shutting off access, therefore, isn’t just a matter of refusing to purchase the commodity. Finding an alternative source for natural gas isn’t that straightforward, either. The infrastructure to replace natural gas imports from Russia with imports from other countries like the US doesn’t yet exist at the necessary scale — and increased production and use would likely severely compromise climate goals.
Furthermore, Russia’s natural gas exports — both shipments as liquid natural gas and via pipelines like the now-scuttled Nord Stream 2 — have actually increased since the beginning of the war, according to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
But “the biggest question is Germany,” Gustafson said. The biggest economy in the EU, Germany relies heavily on Russian natural gas to heat homes and power its economy; dismantling that infrastructure without triggering a recession with wide-ranging effects will be a delicate negotiation indeed. Germany long ago developed “very elaborate” partnerships with Russia, Gustafson noted, particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union. Germany’s thinking was that such economic interdependence would ensure peace in Europe, which The Daily explained in an episode last month. The invasion of Ukraine undid decades of peace, and Germany’s energy transition will have to undo decades of cooperation with and dependence on Russian sources.
If and when the EC unanimously decides a path forward to wrest EU member nations from dependence on Russian fuel, it’s not clear what the desired effect of an oil or all-out fuel embargo would be. Theoretically, the goal of cutting off profits from Russia’s fuel industry is to stop Putin’s war machine by bleeding the Russian economy. It could take quite a long time before the EU’s embargo has that significant of an effect, though.
Wednesday’s announcement doesn’t appear to have altered Putin’s viewpoint, either. The Kremlin’s response to the embargo proposal has been in line with its attitude toward Western involvement in the war, Gustafson told Vox: “The dominant response, and certainly the public response, is defiance, and defiance toward the West.”
From The Hindu: Sports
La Liga: Barcelona secure Champions League spot with 2-1 Betis win - Barcelona veterans Alba and Dani Alves combined in the final seconds of the game, and the left-back lashed the ball past goalkeeper Rui Silva with a superbly-taken, first-time volley
Forest Flame and Triple Wish please -
Premier League: It’s not a funeral, says Klopp after Spurs draw - Liverpool manager Juergen Klopp told his side to stop behaving as if they had attended a funeral after a 1-1 draw against Tottenham Hotspur on Saturday dealt a serious blow to their title challenge and handed the advantage to Manchester City
Miami Grand Prix | Leclerc seizes pole position in Ferrari front row sweep - Verstappen lines up third; Hamilton sixth for Mercedes
Pujara scores fourth successive ton in county cricket for Sussex - Pujara came out on top against Middlesex’s Shaheen Afridi, and completed 500 runs for the season in only four games
From The Hindu: National News
Cong. failed as able Oppn., allowing BJP to run amok: TRS - Implement your Warangal promises in States ruled by Cong. first, Rahul told
Dindigul Reader’s Mail -
BJP seeks DGP probe into inter-faith marriage murder -
Lord Ram doesn't bless those with ‘fake’ emotions: Sanjay Raut on Raj Thackeray's upcoming Ayodhya visit - BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh has also opposed Raj Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya
TS wait for Centre’s nod for raising OMBs continues - Delay cause of concern due to Rythu Bandhu kharif instalment in June
From BBC: Europe
‘We tried not to watch’ - escapees recount terror of Russian-occupied Izyum - Two women recall what happened when Russia took over a strategically-important city in the Donbas.
Ukraine war: Civilians now out of Azovstal plant in Mariupol - All elderly people, women and children have left the Azovstal plant in Mariupol, say Ukraine and Russia.
Ukraine war: Returning to the place my father was killed - As Vadim and his father tried to rescue their dogs, they were fired upon by a convoy they believe was Russian.
Moskva sinking: US gave intelligence that helped Ukraine sink Russian cruiser - reports - The Pentagon has not commented, but a spokesman said the US gave intelligence to help Ukraine’s defence.
Who is Alina Kabaeva, Putin’s alleged girlfriend? - The EU is proposing to sanction Alina Kabaeva, an ex-gymnast turned media boss close to President Vladimir Putin.
From Ars Technica
Museum rigs up multi-screen N64 GoldenEye to prevent “screencheating” - Step one: Spend thousands on outdated CRT signal processing tech. - link
Corals convert sunscreen chemical into a toxin that kills them - The chemical in the sunblock is fine until the coral alters it. - link
Small drones are giving Ukraine an unprecedented edge - Consumer drones are having a huge impact on the country’s defense against Russia. - link
An encyclopedia of geology that’s less a reference than a journey - Rocks are not nouns but verbs, says Marcia Bjornerud in her new book. - link
Why Severance is one of the best shows on TV - This Apple TV+ show is bonkers in the best way. - link
