Michael Madsen, the actor known for appearances in several Quentin Tarantino films, including “Reservoir Dogs,” “Kill Bill Vol. 2” and “The Hateful Eight,” has died, his manager told CBS News.He was 67.
Madsen apparently went into cardiac arrest and was found unresponsive in his home in Malibu, California, on Thursday morning, manager Ron Smith said.
“In the last two years Michael Madsen has been doing some incredible work with independent film including upcoming feature films Resurrection Road, Concessions and Cookbook for Southern Housewives, and was really looking forward to this next chapter in his life,” managers Susan Ferris and Ron Smith and Publicist Liz Rodriguez said in a statement.
“Michael was also preparing to release a new book called Tears For My Father: Outlaw Thoughts and Poems currently being edited. Michael Madsen was one of Hollywood’s most iconic actors, who will be missed by many,” they added.
Michael Madsen is seen at the “Kill Bill Vol.1” Hollywood premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood, California.
Jon Kopaloff/FilmMagic
This is a breaking news story. It will be updated.
Jordan Freiman is a news editor for CBSNews.com. He covers breaking news, trending stories, sports and crime. Jordan has previously worked at Spin and Death and Taxes.
Great Job & the Team @ Home – CBSNews.com Source link for sharing this story.
On Wednesday evening, Elon Musk’s xAI sent a rare email to reporters—alerting them that it had received a much-anticipated permit to use gas-powered turbines at its Memphis data center despite blowback from the surrounding community about pollution.
The notice was unusual. For one, it’s rare for xAI—the company that includes X, formerly Twitter, or any of Musk’s other wide array of ventures—to ever engage with the media. Musk famously disbanded the media relations teams across all of his companies years ago, and they now only communicate with the public via social media posts and retain full control of the narrative. xAI has repeatedly ignored reporters’ questions, including from Fortune, about its operations in Memphis or its use of generators that critics say spew toxic pollution.
But there was something else unusual about the email: It was from Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff.
Katie Miller, a seasoned political operative and communications manager, was among Musk’s highest-profile allegiants while he was a White House adviser and at the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has credited Katie Miller as “a critical reason DOGE was able to get off the ground.” But as the alliance between Trump and Musk frayed, Katie Miller exited the White House at the end of May, reportedly to work full-time for Musk at his various ventures, according to CNN. Stephen and Katie Miller have not spoken publicly about her departure from the White House, nor her work with Musk.
Katie Miller’s departure from the White House set off a wave of palace intrigue over the fact that Stephen Miller remained with Trump while Katie now worked for his estranged cost-cutter in-chief. The relationship between Trump and Musk has only gotten worse since Katie Miller left, with Musk recently threatening to fund a rival political party to the Republicans while Trump has raised the possibility of retaliating against Musk’s companies and taking a “look” at deporting him.
xAI has, evidently, become one of Katie Miller’s areas of focus. The email she sent on Wednesday came from her xAI email address, and Miller’s account on X has featured news and updates about xAI, including its new permit, in addition to posts about Tesla and statements criticizing media outlets.
In Katie Miller’s email to reporters, she provided information about evaluations of pollution that regulators had conducted at xAI’s supercomputer site in Memphis. She also included a rare statement from xAI about the new permit that had been issued by the Shelby County Health Department.
“xAI welcomes today’s decision by the Shelby County Health Department,” she wrote. “Our onsite power generation will be equipped with state-of-the-art emissions control technology, making this facility the lowest emitting of its kind in the country. We look forward to being a valued partner to the Memphis Community for years to come.”
Katie Miller also sent at least one other email to reporters at the end of June, pointing out that the City of Memphis had conducted an independent third-party study at sites near the xAI data center and had found no dangerous pollutant levels.
Miller didn’t immediately respond to Fortune’s questions about the nature of her work with xAI and whether she was working with any of Musk’s other companies, which include Tesla and SpaceX.
Great Job Jessica Mathews & the Team @ Fortune | FORTUNE Source link for sharing this story.
SAN ANTONIO – Two localnonprofits were selected as grant recipients from an AARP Community Challenge, each tackling projects aimed at serving older adults and the broader community.
AARP sought projects that could specifically benefit those aged 50 and older, according to an AARP website describing the challenge.
Since the community challenge debuted in 2017, it has invested over $24.3 million in more than 2,000 projects, according to the website.
Gardopia Gardens and ActivateSA, the recipients of the two grants, will separately utilize funding for a community garden and crosswalk art installations, respectively.
Community garden at Ella Austin Community Center
Gardopia Gardens CEO Stephen Lucke said the East Side nonprofit selected the Ella Austin Community Center through a “longstanding partnership” with youth after-school and summer programs at the site.
“We’re super excited to be sowing the seed of this partnership, it will help us continue to grow our mission of a healthy and sustainable community,” Lucke said in an email to KSAT.
Lucke said San Antonio’s Department of Human Services helped to choose the center due to a “growing interest in starting a community garden.”
“Water is accessible, and it serves multi-generational populations, which is part of the grant,” Lucke said.
The garden is planned to launch, according to Lucke, in early September, with a volunteer build day scheduled for Friday, Sept. 5.
ActivateSA will use its funding to install two sidewalk art installations across the Beacon Hill neighborhood on the city’s North Side.
Blanco Road and Magnolia Avenue; a “neighborhood transit connector,” Pawlik said, and near apartments serving older adults and those with disabilities.
Blanco Road and Elsmere Place; described by the nonprofit as the heart of Beacon Hill’s dining and retail services.
An AARP news release said the funding for this grant was made possible with support from Toyota Motor North America.
The project will be handled in conjunction with several city departments, including Public Works, Transportation and Arts & Culture, according to ActivateSA Executive Director Joey Pawlik.
“This project also supports many of the goals of the City’s Complete Streets and Vision Zero policies, as well as efforts such as Quick Build Infrastructure,” Pawlik said.
AARP’s release does not mention the exact amount of funding each nonprofit received. Neither Lucke nor Pawlik responded to emails seeking information about the funding specifics.
The European Commission has set out a proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040, with up to 3% coming via carbon credits purchased from other countries.
In a proposed amendment to EU climate legislation, the commission has laid out what it calls a “new way to get to 2040”, including “flexibilities” to ease the burden on member states.
Besides the limited use of carbon credits, the proposal also gives a potentially larger role to carbon dioxide (CO2) removal technologies and leaves the door open for weaker sectoral goals.
It has drawn criticism from climate NGOs and left-leaning European politicians, who argue that it “waters down” the EU’s climate ambitions and presents “considerable risks”.
Yet, the proposal is seen by many as an acceptable compromise option, following strong pushback from many member states to the 90% target, originally proposed last year.
With all nations expected to come forward with new international climate targets for 2035 by September and ahead of the COP30 climate summit, the 2040 goal will also be crucial in determining where the EU’s pledge lands.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief outlines what the amendment proposed by the commission includes, why it has proved controversial and what is expected to happen next.
What has the European Commission proposed?
The European Commission has proposed an amendment to the EU Climate Law, which would set a target for a 90% reduction in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
It will “give certainty to investors, innovation, strengthen industrial leadership of our businesses and increase Europe’s energy security”, the commission says.
“As European citizens increasingly feel the impact of climate change, they expect Europe to act. Industry and investors look to us to set a predictable direction of travel. Today we show that we stand firmly by our commitment to decarbonise [the] European economy by 2050. The goal is clear, the journey is pragmatic and realistic.”
The proposal includes new “flexibilities”, such as a limited role for “high-quality international credits” from 2036, the use of domestic permanent emissions removals within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and additional flexibilities across certain hard-to-decarbonise sectors.
These additional flexibilities are designed to allow countries to meet targets in a cost-effective and “socially fair” way, the commission adds. It says they will provide the possibility that a member state could compensate for a struggling land-use sector with overachievement in other areas, such as emissions from waste or transport.
The target will “send a signal to the global community” that the EU will “stay the course on climate change, deliver the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with partner countries to reduce global emissions”, says the commission.
It has been announced ahead of the UN COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil in November.
The European Commission says it will now work with the council presidency – representing EU member state governments – to finalise the EU’s climate pledges for 2035, so that the EU can submit its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.
The EU was among the 95% of countries that missed the UN deadline to submit their NDCs by February of this year.
A recent update from the European parliament noted that the EU “needs to update its NDC…by September”, in order to meet an extended deadline from the UN.
As such, the advisory board said that the bloc would need to limit its cumulative emissions from 2030-50 to 11-14bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e), in order to be in line with bringing global warming down to 1.5C by the end of the century.
The 90% emissions reduction figure set out by the EU is on the lower end of guidance.
The European Commission’s new proposal builds on previous targets and roadmaps, representing a significant step towards enshrining the 2040 target in law.
In July 2021, the European Climate Law officially entered into force, setting a target of a net GHG reduction of at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, as shown in the chart below.
Rules were introduced governing sectors, such as clean energy, energy efficiency and transport, among others, to help meet this target.
If all were successful in their implementation, they would reduce emissions by roughly 57% by 2030, according to a European parliament assessment in 2022.
Total net greenhouse gas emissions in the EU from 1990 to 2025, with projects and targets out to 2050 in million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e). Source: Eurostat.
Subsequently, the commission has been working on developing a target for 2040, as an interim benchmark between the 2030 target and the EU goal – announced in 2018 – to be “climate neutral” by 2050. At this point, the bloc would reach net-zero emissions overall and would stop adding to global warming.
In 2024, the commission published an impact assessment, detailing the underlying qualitative analysis it had undertaken around emissions reduction targets for 2040.
This, together with the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s report (detailed above) and advice from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed the basis for the 90% target, the commission says.
The headline 90% target for 2040 was announced as part of a roadmap outlined by the commission in February 2024.
The roadmap kicked off a lengthy process in which EU politicians and institutions worked to cement the details of this target, ahead of this week’s proposal on turning it into law.
This process included “substantial engagement” with member states, the European parliament, stakeholders, civil society and citizens, the commission says.
In particular, certain European countries have been placing pressure on the commission to change or adapt the 2040 target, slowing the progress of this week’s proposal, which had been due out in February.
The commission hopes that publishing the proposed target now will allow it to be factored into the EU’s upcoming NDC, in which it will establish an emissions reduction target for 2035.
What does it say about international carbon credits and ‘flexibilities’?
The European Commission’s proposal sets out a “pragmatic” pathway towards the 2040 target, including specific measures to give EU member states “flexibility”.
Of these, the one that has received the most attention is to allow limited use of international carbon credits, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, starting in 2036.
In effect, this flexibility means that emissions within the EU would only need to fall to 87% below 1990 levels by 2040, with the remaining 3% taking place overseas.
This would mean member states could buy credits generated by emissions-cutting projects in other countries and count those cuts towards their own targets.
Other nations, including Japan and Switzerland, have already welcomed the use of international credits to meet their climate goals.
“Using international carbon credits to meet this target, even partially, could undermine domestic value creation by diverting resources from the necessary transformation of the EU’s economy.”
The board also mentioned other concerns that are frequently levelled at “carbon offsetting”, such as credits not resulting in real-world emissions cuts.
The commission’s proposal refers to “high-quality international credits under Article 6”, but does not specify which types of credit. This leaves the door open for lower quality options.
For example, carbon trading under Article 6.2 is subject to far less oversight than trading of Article 6.4 credits.
The proposal also states that: “The origin, quality criteria and other conditions concerning the acquisition and use of any such credits shall be regulated in union law.”
This suggests that the EU would conduct its own assessment of any credits used by member states, beyond the rules that have been negotiated at an international level.
Jonathan Crook, the lead expert on global carbon markets at Carbon Market Watch, tells Carbon Brief that additional safeguards would be “essential”, given outstanding issues with Article 6 carbon credits.
A Q&A accompanying the commission proposal states that credits would be bought from “credible and transformative” projects in nations with Paris-aligned climate goals.
This could severely limit the pool of available credits, because – as it stands – almost all carbon credits are from tree planting, forest conservation and clean-energy projects.
DACCS and BECCS projects could result in relatively permanent carbon removal. Crook says this would be one of the “many necessary safeguards” needed for credit purchases, although he points to potential issues with such projects. He adds:
“This potential durability criterion is only mentioned in the Q&A, rather than in the actual commission proposal and so currently has very limited standing unless it is introduced [into the legal text] during the co-legislation process.”
There are two additional “new flexibilities” mentioned in the commission’s proposal, to help member states meet the 2040 emissions target more easily.
One is the inclusion of permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) removal in the EU ETS, something that was already being discussed as part of an ETS revision.
This would mean that DACCS and BECCS projects in EU member states could sell credits to help high-emitting companies, such as steel plant operators, stay within their ETS limits.
Paying for such credits could become more appealing as the number of available emissions “allowances” under the overall “cap” for ETS system shrinks and the allowances become more expensive.
The commission says this would help to “compensate for residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors”, referring to those that are expensive or difficult to reduce to zero.
The need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is widely recognised and inclusion in the ETS could help to drive investment into early-stage technologies, such as DACCS.
However, there are concerns that focusing on removals diverts investment from readily available technologies that cut emissions, such as electric-arc furnaces for steel plants.
Finally, the commission’s proposal also includes a vague mention of “enhanced flexibility across sectors, to support the achievement of targets in a cost-effective way”.
Linda Kalcher, executive director of the thinktank Strategic Perspectives, tells Carbon Brief that this is “alluding to the fact that we might see weakening of some laws”.
Michael Forte, a senior policy advisor at thinktank E3G, expands on this, noting that it could mean member states adjusting emissions targets between different parts of the EU climate architecture, depending on where they were over- or underperforming.
“I would infer that this means letting member states transfer a greater share of their mitigation efforts between these different instruments,” Forte tells Carbon Brief.
Kalcher notes that such changes cannot be regulated in this law, but instead would need to be part of the expected 2040 framework or other pieces of law:
“They are more alluding to future changes, instead of making them now. So that…gives confidence to the countries that have concerns [about the 2040 target] that something will happen.”
Who has supported and opposed the proposed climate target?
Climate campaigners and left-leaning politicians were highly critical of the “flexibilities” included in the commission’s proposal, in particular the use of international carbon credits.
The options proposed were described by civil-society groups as “creative accounting” and a “dangerous new precedent” that relies on “outsourcing Europe’s responsibility” to other countries.
The European parliament’s centre-left Socialists and Democrats coalition issued a statement warning that “the inclusion of international carbon credits as a means to meet the target carries considerable risks”.
Yet the proposal, presented as a “new way to get to 2040”, is widelyviewed as an attempt to find a political compromise against a tricky geopolitical backdrop.
It allows the EU to aim for the target set out by its scientific advisers, albeit at the lower end of the “90-95%” emissions reduction that had been proposed. This is in spite of a strong political pushback from some member states.
A statement released by Peter Liese and Christian Ehler, German members of the European parliament’s centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group, explained:
“We think it’s very dangerous to criticise the European Commission because they intend to include flexibility in their proposal on the 2040 target. We don’t see a majority in parliament nor council for any 2040 target without flexibility.”
Some member states, including Spain and Denmark, supported the 90% target without asking for major concessions. Others, including Poland and Italy, have argued for a less stringent headline goal.
Meanwhile, others pushed for some kind of compromise during discussions of the new target.
Notably, the newly elected, right-leaning German government gave qualified support for the 90% goal in its coalition agreement, subject to conditions such as the inclusion of international carbon credits. Other influential nations have also increasingly stressed the need for “flexibility” around the target.
Meanwhile, according to Politico, France has been part of a push – alongside “climate laggards” Hungary and Poland – to separate discussions of the EU’s domestic 2040 target from its international 2035 NDC pledge.
According to the news outlet, such decoupling could result in a weaker 2035 target, compared to the 2035 target that is expected to be derived from the 90% reduction 2040 goal.
Alongside tabling its 2040 climate goal, the commission issued a new “communication” on “delivering on the clean industrial deal”. (The deal was first announced in February.)
The communication says that “decarbonisation and reindustrialisation are two sides of the same coin” and reaffirms that the aim of the deal is to “enable the EU to lead in
developing the clean-technology markets of the future”.
The commission says delivery of the deal is “already underway”. It points to the adoption of the clean industrial deal state aid framework on 25 June, an €85bn ($100bn) state-aid package for helping member states transition their economies.
Environmental law charity Client Earth said a draft version of the framework risked “entrenching support for fossil gas and fossil based low-carbon gases”.
The clean industrial deal communication also notes that the commission this week published recommendations on tax incentives for speeding up the energy transition.
On 18 June, the European parliament and council agreed on a commission proposal to simplify the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a policy for taxing carbon-intensive imports at levels equivalent to the EU ETS.
The agreement introduces a new exemption threshold of 50 tonnes for CBAM goods, meaning small and medium-sized companies that do not exceed this weight of imports per year will now be exempt from the measure.
EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra described it as a “win for both climate policy and competitiveness of our companies”, with the new measure meaning 90% of companies will now be exempt from the CBAM, but 99% of emissions will still be covered.
Previous analysis has found that, in isolation, the CBAM will have a limited impact on global emissions.
Before the target can be adopted, it must be agreed by member states and pass through the European parliament.
Once the parliament and national ministers have agreed on their separate positions, three-way “trialogue” negotiations between them and the commission can begin with the aim of finalising the 2040 legislative proposal.
All nations were asked to submit new 2035 climate pledges, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), to the UN by February of this year (see: What has the European Commission proposed?). The EU was among the vast majority of parties to miss the deadline.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell has now asked all parties to submit their NDCs “by September”. This is to allow time for the preparation of a report on the collective ambition of all nations’ pledges before COP30 in November.
The EU’s NDC will include an “indicative 2035 figure” derived from the bloc’s 2040 climate target, according to the commission.
The commission says it will work with the Danish presidency of the EU council and member states to finalise its NDC.
It is expected that the EU will aim to finalise both its 2035 NDC and its 2040 climate goal ahead of the next UN general assembly, which starts on 9 September in New York.
An unsettling video, posted on June 27, showed an Uber driver casually twirling a knife in his lap while driving a Black woman to her home.
The passenger, @Xkhatukhu, shared the clip on her social media, where it quickly went viral, amassing hundreds of comments concerned for her safety. “This driver’s name is Ethan,” wrote the scared passenger, hashtagging the caption #CTL, a common abbreviation for Charleston, North Carolina.
TikTok user @Xkhatukhu shared a video of an Uber driver twirling a knife during her ride. (Photos: Tiktok/@Xkhatukhu)
“Today I was blessed to make it out alive,” she stated.
Atlanta Black Star shared the video on our official Instagram account, and the post drew the attention of Uber. The company posted a response in the comments, confirming they had banned the driver after conducting an investigation.
“Rider safety is important to us, and we take situations like this very seriously. We have investigated this incident and have banned the driver from the Uber platform,” the statement read.
The ban comes as no surprise, as it’s in accordance with Uber’s official policy on weapons, which prohibits drivers from “carrying firearms or weapons of any kind (e.g., knives, tasers) while using the Uber apps, to the extent permitted by applicable law.”
The blade in question was a folding knife that the man held in a closed position while steering. He suddenly flipped it open and began to play with the handle and touch the blade, meanwhile taking both hands off the steering wheel. The passenger, who identified herself on social media as a behavioral health professional, secretly captured the whole thing on video from the back seat of the car and wisely chose not to confront the driver, who many noted appeared “scary” and “lost in his own mind.”
“I am here to help, but the help he needs, I don’t have that power. I choose me every time, in this situation I would not have done anything differently, nor would I risk my life…” she wrote in the comments of her TikTok post.
More than 800 people chimed in to show their support. “That’s inappropriate on his part [but I] don’t care if he’s innocently fidgeting. NO ONE should take this lightly under any circumstance,” stated one commenter.
The passenger, who has chosen to remain anonymous for her safety, has not indicated whether she will pursue any charges against the man or sue Uber.
In North Carolina, you can open-carry knives of all types, but there are stringent restrictions on “concealed carry,” and it’s generally considered illegal.
It’s unclear from the video if the knife was ever concealed during the ride. What’s more, the state’s concealed carry law makes an exception for “ordinary pocket knives” if the blade length is less than four inches.
For now, she just hopes her story will inspire others to be extra diligent when using rideshares — and not hesitate to document shady behavior.
“This is my story and the point of me sharing is to tell everyone to be cautious and use their instincts. I did report him to officials… he has my address. I’m not playing around with this man.”
Great Job Grace Jidoun & the Team @ Atlanta Black Star Source link for sharing this story.
More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a case over state restrictions on which school sports teams transgender students can join.
Just two weeks after upholding a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, the justices said they will review lower court rulings in favor of transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia. The case will be argued in the fall.
The nationwide battle over the participation of transgender girls on girls sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans have leveraged the issue as a fight for athletic fairness for women and girls.
More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court.
At the federal level, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits and launched investigations over state and school policies that have allowed transgender athletes to compete freely. This week, the University of Pennsylvania modified a trio of school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes “disadvantaged” by her participation on the women’s swimming team, part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case.
Separately, Senate Democrats in March blocked a Republican push for a national ban.
Republican President Donald Trump also has acted aggressively in other areas involving transgender people, including removing transgender troops from military service. In May, the Supreme Court allowed the ouster of transgender service members to proceed, reversing lower courts that had blocked it.
A recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 7 in 10 U.S. adults think transgender female athletes should not be allowed to participate in girls and women’s sports at the high school, college or professional level. That view was shared by about 9 in 10 Republicans and roughly half of Democrats.
West Virginia is appealing a lower-court ruling that found the ban violates the rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since she was in the third grade. Pepper-Jackson sued the state when she in was middle school because she wanted to compete on the cross country and track teams.
This past school year, Pepper-Jackson qualified for the West Virginia girls high school state track meet, finishing third in the discus throw and eighth in the shot put in the Class AAA division.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Pepper-Jackson in two areas, under the Constitution’s equal protection clause and the landmark federal law known as Title IX that forbids sex discrimination in education.
“It’s a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. The people of West Virginia know that it’s unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that’s why we passed this commonsense law preserving women’s sports for women,” state Attorney General John McCuskey said in a statement.
Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson, who had urged the court to reject the appeal, said they stand ready to defend the lower-court rulings.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do–to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” the American Civil Liberties Union’s Joshua Block said in a statement. Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ rights, also is representing Pepper-Jackson.
Idaho in 2020 became the first state in the nation to ban transgender women and girls from playing on women’s sports teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities.
The ACLU and the women’s rights group Legal Voice sued Idaho on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who hoped to run for Boise State University. A Boise-area athlete who is not transgender also joined the lawsuit because she fears the law could force her to undergo invasive tests to prove her biological sex if someone questions her gender.
The state asked for Supreme Court review after lower courts blocked the state’s ban while the lawsuit continues.
The justices did not act on a third case from Arizona that raises the same issue.
Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Great Job & the Team @ WFAA RSS Feed: news Source link for sharing this story.
SILVERSTONE – George Russell says there’s an “exceptionally low” chance he’ll leave Mercedes next year, even after he claimed the team was holding talks with Formula 1 champion Max Verstappen.
Speaking ahead of the British Grand Prix, Russell said he was confident of staying with Mercedes and argued that changing drivers would risk the team’s competitiveness when sweeping rule changes come in 2026.
Russell caused a stir last week when he suggested to broadcaster Sky Sports that “conversations with the likes of Verstappen are ongoing” and were a reason why he had yet to renew his contract for 2026.
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff has not denied interest in four-time champion Verstappen. The Dutch driver himself has declined to comment on his future with Red Bull beyond 2025.
“I want to continue with Mercedes into the future,” Russell said Thursday. “The fact is, Toto has never let me down. He’s always given me his word, but he’s also got to do what’s right for his team, which includes me, but it also includes the thousands of people who work for Mercedes.
“For me, it’s nothing to worry about because I don’t think I’ll be going anywhere, and whoever my teammate will be, it doesn’t concern me either. So, just focus on the driving.”
Russell added: “I am loyal to Mercedes. At the end of the day, everything will work itself out. And the likelihood I’m not at Mercedes next year, I think is exceptionally low.”
With “so many unknowns” about next year’s rule changes, Russell said, “I think for us, from both sides, our best opportunity of winning is to continue as we are.”
Russell is fourth in the F1 standings and took Mercedes’ only win of the season at the Canadian Grand Prix last month. His Mercedes teammate is 18-year-old rookie Kimi Antonelli, who’s had an impressive first season in F1.
Verstappen on Thursday said he had “nothing else to add” since last week in Austria, when he did not confirm he’d stay with Red Bull.
Verstappen also declined to comment on any interest from Mercedes or whether his contract — which runs through 2028 — includes performance-related clauses that could offer him a way out of Red Bull this year.
Verstappen did, however, rule out the possibility of taking a break from F1 to explore his interest in other racing series.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Great Job James Ellingworth, Associated Press & the Team @ KSAT San Antonio Source link for sharing this story.
Fresh off touring Europe in May and June, Orquesta Guayacán is ready for its U.S. leg, Billboard can exclusively announce Thursday (July 3).
The five-date stint kicks off July 10 at Denver’s Stampede Club and wraps July 24 at the Flamingo Theater in Miami. The Colombian salsa group — known for timeless hits such as “Oiga, Mira, Vea,” “Ay Amor, Cuando Hablan Las Miradas,” and “Te Amo, Te Extraño” — will also make stops in Phoenix, Salt Lake City and New York City.
“Our tour in Europe was very important, but now that we’re going to the United States, with all the processes our Latin brothers and sisters are going through, we know our arrival is a very special moment,” Nini Caicedo, the orchestra leader alongside Alexis Lozano, tells Billboard. “We’re happy to bring joy to Latinos because joy is always a human need. It’s our mission to bring joy.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In addition to the new tour, Guayacán is making the rounds with new single “Rumba Para Enamorar” in collaboration with Heredero. The song tastefully laces the orchestra’s traditional salsa with Heredero’s carranga style (a rural Colombian Andean genre).
“We started out making a cumbia criolla, but since we have salsa in our veins, this fusion was born,” Caicedo explains. “It’s been very well received. Salseros don’t have the numbers that other genres have, but this song achieved a million views on YouTube already. It’s well-made traditional music, and it’s been embraced all over Colombia.”
Additionally, Caicedo reflects on the Colombian group’s upcoming 40th anniversary in 2026.
“When we started in 1986, we decided to make a living from something we’d been able to do for free all our lives. Music was our hobby,” he expresses. “We’re from a small town called Quibdó, and when Alexis and I went to Bogotá, we didn’t understand why artists and musicians would say, ‘I’m going to work.’ It never occurred to us that we’d be making a living from a hobby. That’s why we’ve lived a life of joy all this time. Joy preserves reality, your life — it doesn’t age you, it doesn’t embitter you. There hasn’t been any suffering in our career, which is why we still feel the same way as when we started.”
See the 2025 tour dates below:
July 10 — Denver @ Stampede Club
July 11 — Phoenix @ Stratus Event Center
July 12 — Salt Lake City @ VIP Event Center SLC
July 20 — New York @ Hall de la Ciencia
July 24 — Miami @ Flamingo Theater
Great Job Jessica Roiz & the Team @ Billboard Source link for sharing this story.
Sean Combs mouthed “thank you” to the jurors, his hands clasped in prayer. The intricacies of their deliberations will be revealed later on, in the requisite television interviews, but, as of Wednesday morning, what mattered was that Combs had been acquitted of the racketeering and sex-trafficking charges that would have put him away for life. The diminishment in reputation, the status as pariah or laughingstock, the looming sentencing for the lesser charges (two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, amazingly, his first conviction)—he would work his troubles into a narrative of redemption. As one of Combs’s associates said in a Profile of the mogul that ran in this magazine more than two decades ago: “Puffy will always come back. He’s like nature.”
On the second day of jury selection in the case of U.S. v. Sean Combs, Arun Subramanian, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York, called for a closed-door meeting with a defense attorney involved in the case. Subramanian, who is in his forties, and appointed to the court by Joe Biden, exudes a kind of good-natured adaptability; he is a disciplinarian, but a reasonable one. And yet his patience had already been tested by the sixty-seven-year-old Mark Geragos, defense attorney to the stars, who was serving as an unofficial adviser to Combs’s legal team.
“This is ridiculous,” Subramanian told Geragos. “I think referring to the prosecution in this case as a six-pack of white women is outrageous.”
Geragos is a seasoned practitioner who gladly plays the churl if the performance will help sway public opinion. (In his younger years, while representing Michael Jackson in a child-molestation trial, he told Jackson’s accusers that he would “land on you like a hammer.”) The “six-pack” comment was not one that he had made in the courtroom; rather, it was part of a rant he delivered on “2 Angry Men,” the podcast that he co-hosts alongside Harvey Levin, the founder of TMZ. On air, Geragos belittled the federal prosecutors who had been tasked with arguing the government’s case, which was that Combs, one of the most famous entertainment moguls in the world, was guilty of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He also complained that a widely circulated video, showing security footage of Combs wearing nothing more than a towel around his waist, striking Casandra Ventura as she attempted to flee from him in the hallway of the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles, constituted a “character assassination.” (The phrase is a favorite of his; he also used it when representing Hunter Biden during his tax case.)
Made aware of the podcast, the “white women” federal prosecutors argued to Subramanian that Geragos’s behavior endangered the jury-selection process. Subramanian sided with the government—creating precisely the quasi-alliance that Geragos had meant to construct, the stunt having been a way to launder his aggrievement into the record: “I think when you’ve got a Black man who’s being prosecuted and the client feels like he’s being targeted, it’s an observation.” After getting chastised by the judge, Geragos promised to keep things respectful from then on. Subramanian warned Geragos that he’d be listening to his podcast. “As long as you subscribe, I’m all for it,” Geragos replied.
Of the many stories told about Combs inside and outside the courtroom at 500 Pearl Street, in downtown Manhattan, the high-tech lynching plot works the least. This is a man who is on view solely in jail—he spent nine months at the Metropolitan Detention Center, leading up to the trial—and in the courtroom. Federal cases forbid cameras. Combs, who looks thinner and older than we remember—his hair has turned white, as dye is not allowed inside of jail—exists mainly in court sketches, done by Jane Rosenberg, the portraitist of Harvey Weinstein and John Gotti. One day, during a break in the proceedings, Combs asked Rosenberg to soften him, as he felt her style made him look like a koala.
Combs, a human Bacchus, has devoted more than thirty of his fifty-five years to the ruthless building of a life-style empire, beginning with music production and artist management at his record label, Bad Boy, and then venturing into fashion, alcohol, media, television, and, ultimately, the promotion of himself. The boy from Mount Vernon, New York, made more than good—an icon of cultivated living to rival Martha Stewart. Wasn’t it Combs who pioneered the relentless self-advertising that has become commonplace today, licensing his name and his image to brands that fit his standard? Those who defend Combs, those who feel indifferent toward him, those who are convinced of his guilt, can all justify their reasoning through the fact of his proud megalomania, his relentless broadcast of his own name.
Or names. The aliases abound. The indictment against Combs lists five—Puff Daddy and P. Diddy among them—but it is the “Diddy” moniker that has risen above the rest and stuck in the coverage, in the daily conversation. It is his most famous name, yes, but it also rings, usefully, with a sense of peril and puerility.
The Diddy federal trial is the outgrowth of a civil suit filed, in 2023, by Ventura against Combs. Both a former girlfriend and a former employee of Combs’s, Ventura, a model-dancer-singer from Connecticut, met him in 2005, at the age of nineteen. He was thirty-seven. Combs signed Ventura to his label, Bad Boy Records. Then he promoted her to lover and muse, throwing her on his suit-clad arm, for the duration of some fifteen years, as if she were jewelry enfleshed. This was no love match—Combs still publicly pined for his former girlfriend Kim Porter, the mother of the majority of his children, and he still lived in the shadow of the music-royalty dynamic that he once had with Jennifer Lopez. But a fun, mutually beneficial daddy-baby relationship, we thought—or perhaps did not think, as their pairing stirred little intrigue. The end of their relationship, though, did trigger gossip alarms. Ventura moved on with Alex Fine, the physical trainer who first worked with Combs and then Ventura to help her maintain her look. What changed? Why fall in love with “the help”?
The civil suit unveiled the mystery. Ventura described years of coercion, sexual abuse, rape, and physical battering at Combs’s hands. His business-maverick persona could convey mercilessness, but a tolerable amount. The Ventura suit suggested sadism. Combs forced her to take drugs and have sex with male sex workers, she claimed, all for his voyeuristic pleasure. He exhausted her; he used her as a sort of plastic doll. Perhaps more shocking than the suit was the speed with which Ventura settled it, within twenty-four hours. She had filed the suit in New York State under the Adult Survivor Act, an extension of the statute of limitations for sexual-abuse civil suits. The legislation, which has lapsed, was a #MeToo reform signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul. Notably, Ventura did not take her allegations against Combs to the press—a coöperative strategy that requires the memoir-ish truth-telling of the victim, and the impartial investigation of a journalist. The decision to bypass culture, in a sense, and go straight to the law points to the power of her adversary, a living metaphor for the culture itself.
The hotel security footage was leaked to CNN in May, 2024. Combs posted an apology video to Instagram, deploying therapy speak, but the damage was done. The narrative everyone uses is that of the fall from power. Government raids of the mansions in Los Angeles and Star Island producing images of a small armory and, more disturbingly, many bottles of baby oil; the silly rumor of the flight overseas; the spectacle of his arrest in New York City, in September, 2024; the deluge of civil suits, the deluge of alleged victims, both approaching the triple digits. In Billings, Montana, Reciprocity Industries—“a software development company with specialist expertise in legal and television advertising and call center services,” according to its website—set up cubicles for workers who droned into their headsets: “Were you or your loved ones sexually abused by Sean (Love) Combs, known as Diddy, Puff Daddy, and P. Diddy?” In March, two months before the trial began, the Times reported that the hotline had received twenty-six thousand calls. An atmosphere of opportunism and conspiracy coalesced, fed by shock jocks, TikTok psychologists, and citizen-journalist bloggers, who have become characters in the saga, and by Combs himself.
On the morning of May 12, 2025, eight men and four women filled the jury box. Subramanian promised them that he would move the trial along quickly. Combs is reported to have faced them, appearing professorial, in a sweater, his hands clasped over a notebook. The demographic data in celebrity criminal trials is a point of obsession, given the stratum of the star defendant: Who are Combs’s peers? Apparently, they are between thirty and seventy-four years old. Professions include architecture, nursing, biology, investment analysis, and massage therapy. The massage therapist was debated over, the defense offering a concern that his expertise in body work might influence his view of physical trauma. There were debates over race, too. Marc Agnifilo, one of Combs’s defense lawyers, accused the government of purposefully striking Black jurors. Subramanian staved off the identity-politics hysteria. In the end, the desired rainbow: the final panel included one Asian person, two who were identified as “Hispanic,” four whites, and five Blacks, which would diminish to four, by mid-June, after Subramanian dismissed Juror No. 6, who he believed had shaded his testimony to get a seat.
Emily Johnson, a U.S. Attorney, took fifty minutes to deliver her opening statement. She sought to kill the celebrity in the jury’s mind: “To the public, he was Puff Daddy, or Diddy. A cultural icon, a businessman—larger than life. But there was another side to him, a side that ran a criminal enterprise.” The RICO statutes (named for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) conjure the Mafia, a highly orchestrated and highly mythologized network that carries out dastardly crimes. How to frame the bon vivant as a felon? The vernacular of Combs’s activities comes across as kinky, not immediately nefarious. During the trial, jurors watched clips of what Combs has described as “freak-offs,” voyeuristic sessions in which he would allegedly force women, who were under the influence of drugs, to have sex with other men in his presence. When allegations of arson, rape, and abuse were introduced, particularly as described by two key witnesses, Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym of Jane, the jury felt the gravity. But the charges required proving the high standard of conspiracy. Johnson’s task was to prepare the jury to interpret, for example, the use of a company card to buy baby oil, or a flight for an escort, as the predicate offense warranting life in prison. The argument was that Combs’s employees, following his orders, facilitated a pattern of coercion and violence that far exceeded typical celebrity shenanigans. “He called himself the king and expected to be treated like one,” Johnson said.
Great Job Doreen St. Félix & the Team @ Everything Source link for sharing this story.
