SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " fought " 172 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Blues Defenseman Gets Encouraging Injury Update
Logan Mailloux underwent right-hand surgery at the end of September after a preseason game against the Chicago Blackhawks. The St. Louis Blues defenseman fought Cole Smith in the first period of the Blues’ final preseason game. Mailloux was set to be reevaluated in eight weeks after the surgery. That would put his potential return date […] The post Blues Defenseman Gets Encouraging Injury Update appeared first on HEAVY.
The 10 best final girls in horror movie history, ranked
From Sidney Prescott in ‘Scream’ to Selena in ‘28 Days Later,’ these final girls did more than survive — they fought back and became horror legends. Here are our 10 favorites, ranked.
'It's not ... nuclear science.' Center Grove is dangerous when playing at its best
Center Grove has fought inconsistency but Trojans are dangerous when playing their best. On Center Grove's rally to beat Bloomington South.
Two-goal offensive effort, superb goalkeeping lead Newark Data Science past Science Park
Newark Data Science did just enough to get the better of Science Park and secure a hard-fought win
Badgers swept in fifth straight loss to Nebraska
The Badgers fought quite hard, but fell short on Saturday.
USMNT youngsters complete perfect window with win over Canada
By Justin RudermanThe United States men's national team completed a perfect September/October FIFA international window with a hard-fought 1-0 victory over Canada on Tuesday night at Minnesota United ...
Jeff Gordon Compares Kyle Larson’s Team to NASCAR Legends
Kyle Larson fought back from a lap down to finish second at Las Vegas. Jeff Gordon says that is what championship teams do, and he compared the No. 5 to some of NASCAR's greatest.
Chiefs HC Andy Reid provides Rashee Rice injury update
The Kansas City Chiefs got a hard fought 30-27 victory over the Las Vegas Raiders on Sunday.However, it came at a cost with a pair of wide receiver injuries. Late in the game, Tyquan Thornton sustained a gruesome ankle injury in which he had to be carted off the field for. On the opening drive, […] The post Chiefs HC Andy Reid provides Rashee Rice injury update appeared first on HEAVY.
Players who stood out in Nebraska football’s hard-fought win over Maryland
Nebraska (5-0, 2-0) didn’t miss a beat after a dominant road victory last week and took care of Maryland (2-2, 0-1) 48-23 Saturday afternoon at Memorial Stadium. The Huskers fought through a disappointing first quarter and an array of penalties to take the lead against the Terrapins in the second quarter, and they held that lead through the end of the game. Nebraska totaled 447 yards of offense, led by receiver Kwazi Gilmer and methodical drives. Here’s who stood out on the afternoon:
Final Fantasy 7 Revelation director says he "did his best" to fight for a full disc release
Naoki Hamaguchi says he fought for a disc release of Final Fantasy 7 Revelation, as the industry heads towards an all-digital future.
Downtown church’s history follows Madison’s story for 175 years
Christ Presbyterian Church will celebrate its 175th anniversary this weekend, having survived fires, fought segregation and seen pastors tried for heresy.
‘He had a knife to my neck’: Business owner recounts fighting off man who held her at knife point
A woman fought off a man who put a knife to her neck and demanded her fanny pack Saturday inside Upcycle Treasure Box on Gravois Avenue, according to the store’s owner.
How Did the Cantera Rojiblanca Fare This Weekend?
Another weekend of action came and went across Guadalajara’s youth divisions. The Cantera Rojiblanca picked up a pair of important wins and played several matches in which the teams fought for a res...
'Home Improvement' star says Patricia Richardson got 'tired' of fighting for sitcom
Taran Noah Smith reveals Patricia Richardson fought to keep "Home Improvement" realistic as new writers pushed scripts in a different direction.
Alex Greenwood gives City slender win over Charlton
An Alex Greenwood free-kick saw Manchester City claim all three points in a tightly fought contest against newly promoted Charlton. The meeting was the first between the two sides. The win sees the Sk...
Arizona at Washington State: Players of the Game
Saturday night saw the Arizona Wildcats travel to Pullman, Washington to take on the Cougars of Washington State. After a pretty up and down first half, the ‘Cats settled down and found their rhythm in the second half, winning a hard-fought contest 34-24. Even with the inconsistencies, there were plenty of clutch plays and career […]
Why Playing Titans Made Eagles QB Jalen Hurts "Emotional"
Philadelphia’s star quarterback reflects on a hard-fought victory at Nissan Stadium, where a powerful tribute to childhood hero Steve McNair fueled an intensely personal and nostalgic performance.
Northwestern Wildcats Fall Just Short Against No. 5 Indiana
The Wildcats fought until the end against the Hoosiers in Bloomington.
Partisan Politics Should Stay out of America’s Cultural Institutions
During his second presidential term, President Donald Trump and his administration have initiated countless attacks on free speech. Virtually every entity involved in the public dissemination of information has been impacted by the Trump administration’s censorship campaign. Responses to these attacks have been wide-ranging: while many organizations and institutions have fought back against the administration,...
Alex DeBrincat Fights, Then Wins It in Overtime
Alex DeBrincat fought Trevor Kuntar, then won it in overtime as Detroit beat Buffalo 3-2. #RedWings
UFC Champion Justin Gaethje Provides Latest Health Update
UFC lightweight champion Justin Gaethje provided his latest health update as fans eagerly anticipate seeing him fight again.Gaethje’s last fight came in June when he defeated Ilia Topuria via fourth-round TKO due to corner stoppage to become the undisputed UFC lightweight champion of the world.However, he has not fought since then and isn’t even sure […] The post UFC Champion Justin Gaethje Provides Latest Health Update appeared first on HEAVY.
UFC Champion Justin Gaethje Provides Latest Health Update
UFC lightweight champion Justin Gaethje provided his latest health update as fans eagerly anticipate seeing him fight again.Gaethje’s last fight came in June when he defeated Ilia Topuria via fourth-round TKO due to corner stoppage to become the undisputed UFC lightweight champion of the world.However, he has not fought since then and isn’t even sure […] The post UFC Champion Justin Gaethje Provides Latest Health Update appeared first on HEAVY.
Sarah Schmelzel details 15-year health battle with plans to return to LPGA in 2027
Sarah Schmelzel fought a 15-year battle for a diagnosis of Stage IV endometriosis and after multiple surgeries, the 31-year-old LPGA Tour player is looking to return to the game she loves next year.
Auburn Fought Back Against Florida. Then Everything Fell Apart
Auburn football's 44-39 loss to Florida turned on a disastrous third quarter as the Gators scored 17 unanswered points after a 17-17 tie. Alex Golesh's Tigers showed fight behind Byrum Brown, but offensive struggles and defensive breakdowns proved costly in their SEC opener.
Should we be worried about LSU’s passing game?
The Tigers fought against Ole Miss after another slow start, but Sam Leavitt and the passing attack raised questions.
Do Coventry City 'have enough to stay up' this season?
Coventry City fan Conna Chahal believed his club "might struggle in this league" after their 5-0 defeat by Brighton on 13 September, but Saturday's hard fought 1-0 win over Nottingham Forest has changed his thinking. It had been 9,287 days since the Sky Blues last tasted victory in the Premier League, so the result had been a long time coming for the club's loyal supporters. "Do not underestimate how big that three points is for Coventry City," said Chahal, who provides analysis and reaction videos as part of BBC Sport's Fan Collective.
Katie Porter: Prop 40 won’t help fix our broken healthcare system
OPINION: Progressives who have long fought for “Medicare for All” should resist a billionaires tax that entrenches a troubled for-profit healthcare system, rather than dismantling it.
Fiorentina frustrate Napoli with Serie A draw, Como upset
Fiorentina maintained their unbeaten run under coach Paolo Vanoli with a 1-1 draw against Napoli on Sunday, before Frosinone pulled off one of the shocks of the Serie A season by beating high-flying Como.La Viola showed improvement under Vanoli by beating Venezia in Serie A and Pisa in the Coppa Italia in his first two games, and the upturn in form continued as they fought back to claim a draw that moved them onto four points, with Napoli on seven -– six from the summit.
Julian Schuster: “It was a thrilling game”
SC Freiburg came from behind twice to earn a hard-fought point from a trip to Frankfurt. Julian Schuster saw his side fail to win a game for the first time this season, but he was delighted with the r...
Brentford v Chelsea: Key stats and talking points
Unbeaten Brentford host a Chelsea side struggling for consistency under manager Xabi Alonso. Brentford continued their unbeaten start to the season with a hard-fought Carabao Cup win at Reading on Tuesday. Next on their agenda will be a return to winning ways in the Premier League.
[Press release] Global Fund report shows countries fought to protect essential health services despite challenging year
The Global Fund has now helped save 72 million lives since 2002, with this year’s Results Report highlighting how country and community leadership, innovation and partnership helped protect essential services.
Talking Points: European Paradise on Wearside
Collective dreams came into reality as Wearside became a European paradise for a buoyant fanbase after a hard-fought win.
Michael Carrick takes the blame for ‘unacceptable’ Man United loss
United blew a 2-0 lead at Old Trafford for the first time since 1976 as Brighton fought back to knock them out of the Carabao Cup and compound their disastrous start to the season
Blanche vows DOJ is ‘not protecting people’ with classified 9/11 documents
Attorney General Todd Blanche on Monday committed to releasing more government records related to Saudi Arabia’s possible connections to 9/11, in response to family members of those who died during the attacks who have fought for more information on the issue. On the 25th anniversary of 9/11 last week, several family members attended a New […]
Tom Aspinall Vacates UFC Heavyweight Title
UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall announced on Monday that he has decided to vacate his title due to eye injuries.Aspinall was poked in the eye by Ciryl Gane in their UFC 321 main event in October 2025, and he has not fought since then.He has had four eye surgeries and has said that he is […] The post Tom Aspinall Vacates UFC Heavyweight Title appeared first on HEAVY.
Tapatío beaten away at Dorados
Tapatío had a tough road test against Dorados on Matchday 8 of the Apertura 2026. After a hard-fought match, the Rojiblancos ended up falling 3-1 to the Sinaloa side.Tapa opened the scoring in the op...
Grading Arizona football’s performance in loss to BYU
In the first big test of the season, Arizona traveled to BYU and kept in touch with the Cougars but ultimately fell 28-17 in a hard fought battle. In the first half, the Wildcats looked like they were up to the task but a second half shutout killed any confidence from the first 30 minutes. […]
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
‘The Europe she fought for will miss her’: Politicians pay tribute to Emma Bonino
The Italian civil rights activist and former European commissioner has died at the age of 78.
Emma Bonino, Italian politician who fought for abortion access, dies aged 78
Emma Bonino's life in politics began with a crime. In 1974, at a time when abortion was illegal in Italy, she travelled to a clandestine clinic in Florence to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.
He fought terrorism as an FBI agent, now he is fighting cancer and for the health of his fellow 9/11 responders
When American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, Jeffrey Miller rushed to the scene, spending weeks on site recovering evidence from the burned wreckage.
He fought terrorism as an FBI agent, now he is fighting cancer and for the health of his fellow 9/11 responders
When American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, Jeffrey Miller rushed to the scene, spending weeks on site recovering evidence from the burned wreckage.
Letter: Rural representation in Deschutes County politics
During the Revolutionary and Civil wars, citizens have fought for freedom. Freedom from tyranny. America has fought throughout the world for people’s rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, […]
He fought terrorism as an FBI agent, now he is fighting cancer and for the health of his fellow 9/11 responders
The retired FBI special agent is advocating changes to the WTC Health Program.
Odegaard gives Arsenal winning Champions League start at Napoli
Arsenal captain Martin Odegaard's sensational late strike broke stern Napoli resistance as the English champions began their bid for Champions League glory with a hard-fought 1-0 win in Naples on Wednesday.It continued a perfect start to the campaign for Arsenal, who began their Premier League title defence with three wins in a row before condemning Massimiliano Allegri's team to a third consecutive defeat.
Arsenal edge Napoli as Odegaard continues fine start to season
Martin Odegaard maintained his superb start to the campaign as Arsenal opened their Champions League journey with a hard-fought 1-0 victory over Napoli.The Gunners dominated much of the contest but we...
Spartans Offensive Positional Group Report Card: Week One
Alessio Milivojevic’s pocket poise and a revitalized backfield powered a gritty fourth-quarter surge, revealing which units excelled and which stalled in the Spartans’ hard-fought season opener.
In a forest where Jews fought the Nazis, a German military base and Lithuanian politics encroach on memory
Under German occupation, some 400 Jews escaped the Vilnius ghetto to Lithuania’s Rūdninkai Forest, created forts and organized attacks against the Nazis. Now, construction of a new German military base in the area is throwing into question …
🗞️ Today’s front pages, tension in Madrid, Betis delight...
The Champions League has thrown its doors wide open with a menu full of contrasts for Spanish football: Real Madrid’s emphatic yet hard-fought win, an epic and historic victory for Real Betis after ...
Canfield Fair incident puts focus on political rhetoric in Ohio governor’s race
For months, Ohio’s governor’s race has been fought with increasingly personal campaign messages.Now, after an armed man pushed through a crowd toward Democrati
Medi-Cal won't pay for assisted living in most of California. One brother fought back
A brother spent 9 months fighting Medi-Cal so his sister could get assisted living near home instead of a nursing home.
Space wars are no longer science fiction: How nations are preparing for conflict in orbit
International News: Space, often called the final frontier, is fast becoming central to how wars will be fought on the planet. From communication to guiding weapons onto .
Inside the Market Basket family feud that ousted Artie T. Demoulas
The Demoulas family has fought over Market Basket for decades. The latest power struggle ended with the ouster of longtime CEO Artie T. Demoulas.
Inter roar back in five-goal thriller with Napoli
A last-gasp winner from Lautaro Martinez sealed a breathless win for Inter as the Serie A champions fought back from two goals down to edge visiting Napoli 3-2.Inter responded almost immediately when Martinez hammered in his first goal of the season from a Dimarco cross.
Sage demands Crystal Palace improvement despite first win of season
Crystal Palace boss Pierre Sage admitted he was unhappy with his side’s defensive display despite their 3-2 victory over Fulham.Palace secured all three points in a closely fought contest thanks to ...
Gary Neville predicts the outcome of Arsenal v Chelsea
Gary Neville has predicted how he expects the Chelsea-Arsenal game to end as two unbeaten clubs prepare to meet in the Premier League this weekend.Arsenal secured a hard-fought 1-0 victory against Ast...
Ashley Hinson fought to save private equity’s favorite loophole
Now her campaign is being powered by Wall Street Cash.
Jiri Prochazka Teases UFC Fight News
Former UFC light heavyweight champion Jiri Prochazka is teasing fight news ahead of a potential return to the Octagon later this year.Prochazka last fought at UFC 327 in April, when he was knocked out by Carlos Ulberg in a failed bid to recapture the UFC light heavyweight title.The Czechia native has been linked to several […] The post Jiri Prochazka Teases UFC Fight News appeared first on HEAVY.
A Summer of Continuing the Fight: Defending Coverage, Demanding Health Equity
Families USA opposed PRWORA and fought throughout the 90’s to ensure that all people can access affordable health coverage.
Dana White Provides Update on Tom Aspinall’s UFC Return
UFC president Dana White provided the latest update on UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall’s return to the Octagon.Aspinall has not fought since UFC 321 in October 2025, when he suffered an eye injury in a No Contest against Ciryl Gane.Now, nearly a year later, he still hasn’t been booked yet, which has fans wondering when […] The post Dana White Provides Update on Tom Aspinall’s UFC Return appeared first on HEAVY.
New Irvine hospital is a dream fulfilled | UCI Health
Dr. Thomas Cesario was a practicing UC Irvine School of Medicine physician even before the University of California bought the old Orange County medical center in 1976. After decades of pushing to get a modern hospital built on Irvine campus, he has finally seen that dream fulfilled. "We fought to have this hospital built for over 50 years, and a lot of sweat and anxiety went into that effort,” says the 86-year-old former medical school dean. “I'm thrilled that it’s now finally here."
Hiltzik: The Democrats' age revolt took down a progressive leader
Rep. John Larson fought hard in Congress to protect Social Security. Will his much younger successor play the same role?
Reactions: “... a certain spectacle”
“Especially in the first half, it was quite a spectacle. After eight minutes, of course, you thought: against an Italian team, the game is basically over. But we fought our way back into it and also...
Reactions: “… quite a spectacle”
Lars Ricken: “It was quite a spectacle, especially in the first half. After eight minutes, you naturally thought: Against an Italian team, the game is basically over. We then fought our way back and...
Matthew McConaughey Confirms He Nearly Played Pedro Pascal’s Role in ‘The Last of Us’: ‘Wasn’t for Me’
Matthew McConaughey almost fought off clickers in "The Last of Us," confirming he almost took on the role made famous by Pedro Pascal.
Predicting Winners of 49ers Biggest Position Battles
Position battles are one of the most interesting things about training camp and the preseason. The San Francisco 49ershave an elite roster, but that doesn't mean some spots still aren't being fought for. Since then, we've seen several more practices and we've had a depth chart release.
Small Business Spotlight: Specialty dental practice takes root on Market St.
WHAT MADE YOU WANT TO OPEN BLUE HERON ROOT CANAL SPECIALISTS? OWNER SARAH ERMOSHKIN: “I’ve always been an entrepreneur at heart. When I was 23 years old, I owned a cafe in Seattle, where I even fought to oppose oppressive sales taxes on espresso drinks. After selling that business, I got married and started a family. Once my children were in school, I attended dental school through the Navy Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), which covered my tuition and provided a stipend. From the beginning, my goal was to eventually own my own practice after completing my military service. The work I do is incredibly rewarding and being able to create an environment that puts patients first while helping employees grow professionally makes every day as a business owner meaningful.” WHAT DOES YOUR BUSINESS PROVIDE? ERMOSHKIN: “Endodontists are often called ‘pain doctors’ because our primary mission is to relieve pain and save natural teeth. We specialize in root canal therapy, retreatment of nonhealing root canals, treatment of root resorption, apicoectomies – microsurgical root-end procedures – and vital pulp therapy for children. Our goal is to preserve teeth that might otherwise need to be extracted and replaced with implants. Saving a patient’s natural tooth is almost always the best long-term solution for their oral health.” HOW DOES YOUR MILITARY TRAINING HELP YOUR BUSINESS? ERMOSHKIN: “My military service taught me how to lead, collaborate and make decisions under pressure. I worked closely with senior leadership while treating a large patient population and collaborating with specialists across multiple disciplines. During the COVID-19 pandemic, (I) served a dual role as Navy dentist and as the public affairs officer for Naval Health Clinic Annapolis, where I helped develop medical and dental communications for the midshipmen and support staff, while coordinating with the broader Navy Capital Region. We worked closely with other military treatment facilities to share best practices and deliver consistent public health messaging. Those leadership experiences continue to shape how I lead my team and serve our patients today.” WHAT CHALLENGES ARE YOU FACING RIGHT NOW IN YOUR BUSINESS? ERMOSHKIN: “One of our biggest challenges is overcoming the misinformation surrounding root canal treatment. Root canals are safe, effective and often the best way to relieve pain while preserving a natural tooth. Unfortunately, many people choose extraction because they believe it’s less expensive or because they’ve seen misleading information online. What they may not realize is that losing a tooth can lead to shifting teeth, changes in the way they bite and chew and significantly higher costs to restore their smile later.”
8 Takeaways from Tuesday’s Primaries
A moderate won the closely fought Democratic primary for governor in Wisconsin, the latest contest between the party’s progressive and moderate wings.
A trail of business disputes preceded FBI raid on developer Andy Card
Lawsuits accused the Westfield developer of setting up 'alter ego' companies and commingling funds. Card has fought back against the allegations.
Abdul El-Sayed calls for unity amid tight Senate race: "There's a lot of healing to do after a hard-fought primary like this"
Abdul El-Sayed has a narrow led in the state's Democratic Senate primary against Rep. Haley Stevens.
If Not AOC, Then Who?
What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. Doing so in 2024 was a disaster: our abstention self-marginalized anti-billionaire politics from the national conversation and thereby gave space for Harris to pivot to the “center” (i.e. the policy preferences of corporate donors, establishment hacks, and AIPAC). Abstaining again in 2028 would be especially counterproductive since democratic socialists now have so much wind in our sails after our big electoral wins in NYC and across the country. It’s time to deepen our momentum, organization, and profile — not to retreat to the margins during America’s single most important political battle. Even more urgently, keeping Trump’s heir out of the White House may depend on whether leftists and the party’s unprecedentedly disenchanted base can force the Democrats in 2028 to take meaningful steps towards a very angry electorate and away from the corporate-consultant blob that has helped get us into this mess. If AOC (or Abdul El-Sayed) decides to run, we should enthusiastically go all in — DSA, fighting unions, progressive organizations, anybody who wants to see a better country and world. But, as far as I can tell from the outside, there’s a real chance that she doesn’t run. And we can’t just wait and see where she lands before discussing alternatives, since AOC’s decision might not come for quite a while, giving us little time to scramble at the last minute for an alternative. So we should start working now on getting a Plan B into motion, and recruiting a good candidate for the role. Here’s one idea. A Worker Candidate — Healthcare Not Warfare 2028 Run a union worker Leftists don’t need to always run experienced, well-known socialist politicians for high-profile contests. Lula, the current president of Brazil, began his political career as a metalworker militant who ran for governor of São Paulo in 1982. Especially in an era of institutional distrust, it’s possible to lean hard into making a virtue out of a working-class comrade’s distance from traditional politics. Experience abroad shows this clearly. Rachel Kéké — an immigrant hotel housekeeper — ran as the candidate of the leftist La France Insoumise for the National Assembly in 2022, defeating a former minister in the Macron government. The Belgian Workers’ Party in 2024 won its first Flemish seat in the European Parliament by running Rudi Kennes, a three-decade veteran of the Opel Antwerp auto factory. And the South Korean left in 2024 elected auto factory militant Yoon Jong-oh to the National Assembly. If a tiny French Trotskyist organization could make such a big splash in 2002 and 2007 by running a well-spoken postal worker cadre for office — the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot received about 1.5 million first-round votes — it’s not far-fetched to expect that a much larger organization like DSA, together with a broader coalition of the willing, could run this playbook to much greater effect. This is especially the case now that almost everything DSA does immediately becomes a national news story. We don’t need someone famous. We just need a charismatic, well-vetted comrade who works in a relatable working-class occupation — e.g. a nurse, or a worker in auto or construction, or at Amazon. Ideally, they have a compelling personal story or have been part of a significant strike or organizing campaign, but even those criteria don’t necessarily have to be deal-breakers. The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union. In any case, there are plenty of ways to signal working-class authenticity without resorting to Platner’s or Fetterman’s performative macho white dude affect. Better to have someone of any gender or race who is actually working class, with firm socialist politics, who can speak from experience about the day-to-day realities of trying to make it in America. There are surely at least a dozen such worker leaders in our movement nationwide; we just need to sit down and convince one that their personal sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. running for president) will be worth it. If we don’t have a frontrunner with a clear path to victory like AOC (or El-Sayed, were he to win Michigan), it’s better to embrace someone whose decision to run in itself tells an important story about US politics: workers have been iced out of our political system and are now fighting hard to break back in. The novelty factor, in itself, would generate press. And it would help democratic socialists signal to the American public that our movement’s defining characteristic is that we represent workers vs. bosses, not that we’re “the furthest left” force in American politics — a framework that suggests we’re extremists and that helps our opponents isolate us from non-college-educated voters by highlighting extremely minoritarian (and misguided) stances included in DSA’s platform like prison abolition. We don’t get many opportunities to speak to tens of millions of Americans; we need to use these opportunities to broaden our appeal beyond those already in our orbit. Run to polarize the 2028 primary and general election around “Medicare for All” and “End All Aid to Israel” Why should democratic socialists use our scarce time and volunteer energy to run in a race we’re unlikely to win? Running in the 2028 primary will not only recruit us scores of members (imagine having a DSA member intervening in eleven nationally televised primary debates!), but — more importantly — it has the potential to be a decisive leap forward towards an America that finally starts meeting the needs of working people instead of HMO and AIPAC billionaire donors. Polarizing litmus tests are good, actually — as long as they’re fought for around popular demands in a thoughtful and strategic way. Democratic socialists have an opportunity and responsibility to make the 2028 primary about two of the most widely and deeply felt issues of our moment: domestically, America’s unaffordable, family-breaking private healthcare system; internationally, America’s bankrolling of the genocidal Israeli government. A candidacy relentlessly demanding Medicare for All and No Aid to Israel would pose a sharp question to the American public, the Democratic Party, and other 2028 contenders: Why can’t working-class Americans afford their healthcare bills at the same time that our government is spending at least $3.8 billion yearly to fund an Israeli regime eager to keep dragging us and the world into more forever wars? Our candidate can agitate around a clear message: I’m running to give voice to all those working-class Americans who are struggling to get by. No matter what state you live in, who you voted for in 2024, or your background, it’s just plain common sense that we should make healthcare more affordable instead of spending billions to enable the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity. Every American who agrees with me when I say ‘Medicare for All — Not a Dime for Israel’ should make their voice heard through our campaign. Racking up a high number of votes for this agenda is a crucial way to show the Democratic Party and the country as a whole that we can’t keep supporting a life-destroying status quo in our healthcare system and in the Middle East. If we want to defeat Trump’s handpicked crony this coming November, we need to speak to ordinary people’s frustrations with the status quo — we can’t keep running the same tired establishment playbook and expecting a different result. For those highly engaged voters (or skeptical media pundits) who raise concerns about wasting votes, the candidate can take the time to explain why this isn’t the case: It's true I'm a long shot. But Zohran showed anything can happen — and voting for me is a pragmatic decision, not a wasted vote. In a heavily divided primary with a large number of candidates and a very discredited establishment, my campaign and the democratic socialist movement I’m part of are positioned to be the balance of power if we can get a large enough number of voters to loudly demand Healthcare Not Warfare. Since there’s a high chance no candidate will get to 50% in the 2028 primaries, the Democrats could very well be heading towards a brokered convention, where a disciplined, principled current committed to breaking from corporate donors can play an outsized role in making sure whoever ends up with the nomination raises the banner of single-payer healthcare and cutting aid to Israel. How exactly could running this sort of primary campaign be translated into actual leverage? The candidate replies: I’m aiming to win the nomination, but if I don’t achieve that goal, my delegates and I will pledge our support in the primary only for a candidate who agrees in the general election to call for ending US aid to Israel and establishing Medicare for All at home. These are both winning planks for November against the Republicans, and the only reason I can see that other candidates haven’t yet raised these is that they’re still more scared of the donor class than they are of the people. That needs to change. If Democratic leaders want young people, workers, and those sick of the status quo to show up in big numbers this November, they need to meet us halfway. In this way, whether or not we win the nomination, democratic socialists could still play a decisive role in 2028. The approach outlined here is similar to what radical left parties periodically do in parliamentary democracies like Denmark or Sweden when they find themselves as a junior partner electorally: they dictate to center-left allies what their terms would be for enabling, from the outside, the formation of a new government. Running a Healthcare Not Warfare candidate will make it significantly more likely that the 2028 Democratic candidate stands with ordinary people instead of donors on these two pivotal planks — a shift that will, in turn, make it easier to achieve the existentially important task of defeating MAGA’s heir in November. Look at how much popular traction the Uncommitted movement got with a similar strategy in 2024 with so little on-the-ground organization — surely we can go much further with a working-class candidate, a much bigger DSA, and a Democratic Party base that has turned against Israel, billionaires, and the hacks in the party who prop them up. Objections and Responses There are quite a few objections to this proposal, many of which are very reasonable. Let me briefly address each here. Socialists shouldn’t waste their scarce time and resources on a candidate unlikely to win. This is a good rule in general, but there are important exceptions, and presidential elections are the main one. There’s no other political contest that gets anything like this level of attention and engagement in the US, so if you want to be a serious force in nationwide politics, you basically can’t afford not to have a candidate. Far from being an overall drain on our resources, running a dynamic 2028 campaign would likely result in a major net increase in members and capacity. In that spirit, the very pragmatic Milwaukee sewer socialists — who mostly ran to win at home in Wisconsin — supported Eugene Debs’s propagandistic presidential campaigns, which they correctly saw as a crucial means of recruiting to the Socialist Party. And now that the (post-1972) Democratic Party gives more weight to voters than party operatives in determining its presidential nomination, it’s become feasible to run as a socialist in primaries without risking a split in the vote against the Republicans in November. We should just support Ro Khanna, who also supports M4A and ending aid to Israel. I like Ro Khanna and would enthusiastically vote and canvass for him for president were he to get the nomination. But there’s a real chance that Khanna’s bid for office doesn’t catch on; he lacks the grassroots organizational apparatus of DSA, and, because he’s not really of the Left or labor (despite his current very good positions), he’s unlikely to generate the type of buy-in and enthusiasm that a DSA candidate would. Moreover, Khanna would be running as an individual, not as someone emerging from and building an organized movement — his campaign would not likely focus on building sustained power from below, nor would it likely polarize the 2028 primary around M4A and Israel aid. Also, and not inconsequentially, the poor electoral results for Tom Steyer and Saikat Chakrabarti this spring suggest that there’s perhaps not much of a popular appetite in the Democrats’ base to support multi-millionaire class traitors. Much better, then, to run a democratic socialist worker. If by Super Tuesday it’s clear that our campaign has captured the main left lane in the primary, Khanna should drop out and endorse us; conversely, if he’s managed to capture this lane, DSA could at that point transform its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign into an independent campaign to elect Ro Khanna focused on winning (and holding him accountable to) those two critical planks. An openness to consolidating an anti-corporate candidate by Super Tuesday is a necessary component of the strategy I’m proposing, because otherwise we risk splitting the primary votes (per DNC rules, you need at least 15% to get any delegates to convention). We should convince Shawn Fain or Sara Nelson to run for president instead. I agree it’d be great if either ran for president, but my impression is that there’s basically no chance that will happen in 2028, because both are firmly focused on their union leadership duties (and, in the case of Fain, beating back a federal witch-hunt). This plan could have DSA end up endorsing a non-socialist, non-DSAer for president. That’s against our principles. It’s a myth, and bad politics, that socialists can’t ever support candidates who aren’t members of their organization and/or who don’t call themselves socialists. Bernie, after all, was not a DSAer. And socialists abroad regularly make tactical decisions about if and when supporting a non-socialist candidate makes sense from the standpoint of promoting working-class interests, defending democracy, and building a socialist current in the process. If your “principles” prevent you and DSA from helping achieve the momentous stride forward of having a Democratic candidate in 2028 run on Medicare for All and ending aid to Israel, those “principles” are not very good. In fact, they actively undermine the causes they’re aiming to support. We shouldn’t confuse principles (working-class independence) with tactics (the best way to advance this in a given context). In my recent article in Catalyst on Milwaukee sewer socialism (I’ve uploaded the full text here), I have a section showing how similarly rigid rules about endorsements had to be eventually discarded in the old Socialist Party nationwide after WWI because they tended to lead socialists towards a sectarian abstention from broader anti-corporate electoral insurgencies beyond their party’s control. For what it’s worth, Lenin’s current under Tsarism frequently backed bourgeois candidates in the second round of elections and Lenin himself advocated that British Communists support Labour Party candidates; for his part, Kautsky in 1912 defended the German Social Democracy’s electoral pact with the Progressives in the runoffs. If our predecessors could be that tactically flexible in an era before the limits of their underlying strategic assumptions about intransigent class politics in capitalist democracies were made clear, then there’s no need to insist on being more tactically rigid today, after a century’s worth of accumulated experience. As long as you maintain your own political profile and organization while engaging in broader coalitional efforts, there’s zero inherent contradiction with the principle of political independence. More specifically: DSA and allied organizations should enthusiastically back Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed if AOC declines to run and he throws his hat in the presidential ring. (I have no idea whether he’s even considering this path, but there’ll surely be chatter about it if he wins his Senate race this November.) Though he doesn’t call himself a socialist, El-Sayed is a principled Berniecrat, a consistent fighter for Palestine, and would have a clear path to victory. Using the “s” word is far less important than whether a campaign fights for the interests of working people at home and abroad — and whether actively participating in it can grow the organized working class and the Left. And the same holds true if a less anti-corporate candidate were, under pressure, to adopt our two Healthcare Not Warfare planks. Why focus only on M4A and ending US aid to Israel? There are so many other important issues to fight for! Obviously there are many pivotal issues beyond healthcare and Israel, and our candidate — and especially our organizations involved in the campaign — should be prepared to speak on all of these. But one of the crucial lessons of the Zohran campaign is that you have to relentlessly stay on message if you want to cut through the noise. CNN and Fox News will want to talk about DSA’s views on Venezuela and abolishing the police; we need to polarize the debate on the widely and deeply felt issues that are most favorable for growing the Left, isolating our opponents, and winning urgently needed changes. One recent poll found 63% of Americans support M4A, even after respondents were told it would raise taxes and eliminate most private insurance. Another found that 74% of Democrats opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel.” And focusing on two demands sets the campaign up to be able to leverage its mandate to make clear demands upon other candidates (which we can’t do if we run with a laundry list of demands). Talking about a Plan B is a distraction from the more urgent work of building a groundswell of calls on AOC to run. It’s good for DSAers, fightback unionists, and progressive organizations to try to convince AOC to run. This proposal is meant as an addendum to pushes to get AOC to run and to line DSA up for that eventuality, not as a substitute for those efforts. But I’m worried that, like in 2024, we might eventually find ourselves with no time to find a viable alternative unless we start now. DSA, with its abundant deliberative processes, moves slowly. The approach you’re suggesting seems risky. If a DSA candidate runs but doesn’t receive a lot of votes, it’ll undercut our current national momentum. This is a reasonable worry. All big initiatives always carry risks, and the path I’m advocating is certainly not free of these. That said, if a Healthcare Not Warfare campaign doesn’t catch on like we envisioned, it’s a pretty simple pivot in March 2028 to explain that in the future we really need our standard-bearers like AOC, or our growing bench of national electeds, to step up in presidential primaries. Moreover, it’s worth noting that the risk of my Plan B proposal is on the whole significantly less than the risk entailed by an AOC run. We should all back her if she runs, since she’d fire up the base, provide huge openings for organizing, have a real shot at defeating a Republican (especially given MAGA’s unpopularity), be a great standard-bearer for our issues, particularly M4A and ending aid to Israel, and be less willing than mainstream candidates to capitulate to any anti-democratic machinations from Trump and co. But it’s also true that AOC could lose, which would be a devastating setback to the country and the Left. Or she could win and find herself unable to pass much, if any, of her (and our) program, a demoralizing prospect. So if we’re willing to take these risks with AOC (and we should), it follows that we should be able to take lower-level risks if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring. What’s Your Plan B? The US Left is facing its biggest opening for growth and influence since the 1930s. Initiatives that would have been impossible a few months ago are now potentially feasible. A President AOC is now easier to imagine, but if she ultimately assesses that the risks aren’t worth the potential reward in 2028, we can’t be left flat-footed. So even if you’re not convinced by the specifics of my Plan B, I hope you can at least agree that it’d be a disaster for us not to have one — and not to start getting a Plan B into motion. Hopefully other organizers and political currents will put forward their responses and alternative ideas ASAP. The stakes are too high to just wait and see. More As always, please share this article widely. This newsletter depends on all you lovely people to get the word out. Thank you! I uploaded the full text of my Catalyst article on Milwaukee sewer socialism here (it’s updated and 3x as long as the version published earlier on this substack). If you haven’t yet, please make sure to subscribe to Catalyst here; I read every issue front to back, highly recommend. 🌹🎵 Ivan Lins (arranged by Arthur Verocai) — “General da Banda” 🌹🎵
Conservatives Perfected the Ideal Legal Tactic. It’s Time for Liberals to Use It.
While Heller was built on phony history, it reflected a genuine, hard-fought shift in public understanding.
Israel Adesanya Predicts Jan Blachowicz vs. Navajo Stirling
UFC legend Israel Adesanya shared his prediction for the UFC Belgrade co-main event between Jan Blachowicz and Navajo Stirling.Adesanya fought Blachowicz for the UFC light heavyweight title at UFC 259 in March 2021, losing by unanimous decision. He was also a former longtime training partner of Stirling at City Kickboxing, the gym he trained at […] The post Israel Adesanya Predicts Jan Blachowicz vs. Navajo Stirling appeared first on HEAVY.
Analysts see Coinbase miss driven by crypto market weakness, not business fundamentals
Coinbase shares tumbled to end the week as investors weighed a disappointing quarterly loss for the company, as it fought another tough market environment.
Democrats’ big Virginia plans were foiled, but it’s still at the center of the battle for the House
The Democratic redistricting plan creating four more blue-leaning seats got shot down in court. Instead, two existing GOP-held swing districts are home to hard-fought campaigns.
Apple Is Reportedly Worried About Its Non-Creepy Reputation as It Prepares to Enter a Creepy Product Category
Can Apple's hard-fought reputation for privacy survive the release of a glasses product?
Michigan, Missouri primaries will again lay bare the Democratic divide over Israel
Fiercely fought primaries on August 4 in Michigan and Missouri will provide the next crucial tests in the debate over American policy toward Israel that has convulsed the Democratic Party this year.
Influencers are shaping politics more than ever
The battle for Gen Z voters is increasingly being fought on social media. Republicans have established a strong ecosystem of influencers, while Democrats are trying to catch up. Three political influencers share what they think it might take for both parties to win over young voters in the midterm elections.
Clint Reilly, longtime San Francisco power broker, dies at 79
Clint Reilly advised some of California’s biggest political names, ran for San Francisco mayor and fought to preserve newspaper competition before purchasing the Examiner himself.
Why Epidemics Breed Rage at Health Workers
Some people have fought Ebola containment measures in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Scholars have seen similar responses across societies and throughout history.
‘What a joke’: World Cup referee mistake sparks outrage
Sunday afternoon’s FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match between England and Norway was a hard-fought battle that took extra time to decide a victor. However, the match was marred by controversy after what appeared to be a clear referee mistake. On England’s equalizing goal late in the first half, the ball appeared to hit a camera…
MAGA's attack on science is even worse than it looks
In my post on America’s 250-year anniversary, I argued that respect for the individual was the “secret sauce” in the U.S.’ long-lasting preeminence among nations. But it was certainly not the only factor. There were plenty of institutional innovations that helped the U.S. stay on top — economically, militarily, and in terms of the attractiveness of its society. One of these was American science. Today we take things like the modern research university, government grants for science, public-to-private research spinoffs, etc. for granted, but a lot of that infrastructure wasn’t there before World War 2. It was either invented or scaled up massively by the U.S. government in the postwar period, led by far-sighted scientist-bureaucrats like Vannevar Bush (pictured above). If you want to read about this history, a good place to start would be Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson’s excellent book Jump-Starting America. Those scientific institutions didn’t exist in a vacuum, however. They were backed by the U.S. government’s abiding faith in the power of science — and, even more fundamentally, by deep popular trust in the scientific enterprise. Science gave us radar and the atom bomb in wartime, and in peacetime it gave us plastics, vaccines, cheap food, and a thousand other things that made our lives easier. Science was also the driver behind American industry — chemicals, aerospace, telecommunications, computers, electronics, and so on. We owed science our jobs, our livelihoods, our comfortable living standards, and our greatness and power as a nation. It’s little wonder that both political parties, even as they fought viciously over other issues, were steadfast in their support of science. For a long time, the only people who distrusted science were a hippie fringe on the left who disliked modernity (or thought they did, anyway), who also disliked American industry and American power, and who subscribed to an early version of degrowth environmentalism. America’s scientific enterprise is still strong, especially compared to the systems in Europe, Japan, Korea, and other developed countries. It has lost a lot of ground to China in a relative sense, but a lot of that is because of China’s incredible growth; as China has poured untold amounts of money and talent into its research labs, spending and output have overtaken the U.S. by some measures. There are a few ways in which China’s rise creates problems for American science — for example, top scientists can choose to work in China instead of in the U.S. — and of course there’s the concern that China’s technological strength will help its military to reign supreme. But overall, China’s rise in science should be good for American science, since American scientists can use Chinese discoveries for free and build on them. The much bigger problem is that the scientific enterprise America built during and after World War 2 is now being threatened with absolute decline. The biggest problem, of course, is that much of the country — the Republican half — has basically lost faith in the scientific enterprise. To what degree this loss of faith is justified is an open question, and deserves to be discussed openly. But the larger point — that the system that powered American dominance is under threat — is true either way. Most Americans still trust science, but MAGA Republicans don’t There’s a myth, popular in right-wing circles, that scientists have lost the trust of regular Americans — either due to the increasingly left-wing composition of academic departments, or to misbehavior during Covid, or to DEI-related research taking over science, etc. This also fits with a wider narrative that Americans are losing trust in all of our institutions. But it just isn’t true. Poll after poll shows that on the whole, Americans still trust scientists and want to spend more on science. For example, here’s a Pew poll from late 2025 showing that although about a fifth of Republicans did lose confidence in science in 2020, two thirds still have at least “a fair amount” of confidence: That same poll found that scientists are among America’s most trusted groups — even better trusted than the military! In fact, Americans trust scientists more than people in most other countries do. Other polls show that although Republican trust in science has dropped somewhat, Republican support for spending more on science remains very strong: A Pew poll in 2023 found the exact same thing: So when MAGA types tell you about scientists losing their credibility, or a drop in trust in science, they’re only talking about themselves. Whatever left-wing politicization of science happened during the Biden administration — and there was definitely some of that — it was not enough to make most Republicans lose faith in the scientific enterprise, or favor research cuts in order to purge unwanted ideology from the system. That doesn’t mean I think progressives should continue down the path of politicizing scientific research. They should not, and Biden made real missteps in this area. Objectivity clearly matters for public trust of science in the long term. But as of right now, there’s no crisis of trust in science, except among the smallish minority of people who are running around screaming that there’s a crisis of trust in science. But despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars. Trump’s comprehensive attack on science
Max Holloway predicts 'fireworks' against Conor McGregor
Thirteen years ago, at UFC Fight Night 26 in Boston, future legends Conor McGregor and Max Holloway fought in a featherweight bout on the preliminary card. McGregor defeated "Blessed" via unanimous decision. It was the Irishman's second octagon appearance. The two will rematch in the UFC 329 main ...
Grand jury indicts Louisiana's attorney general in fight over changes to local courts
Louisiana’s Republican attorney general was indicted Thursday on criminal charges by a grand jury in New Orleans, accused of trying to intimidate local officials who fought a law enacted by GOP legislators to overhaul the local courts.
Laid off federal scientists keep maps and data visuals online with crowdfunded money
Federal employees axed during waves of cuts by the Trump administration have fought back against the dismantling of a key climate science website.
Trump's actions signal a move toward institutionalizing people with disabilities, advocates warn
For decades, disabled people have fought for their rights to go to school and live alongside peers without disabilities — rights that some fear could be losing ground under the Trump administration.
John Roberts fought for decades to get rid of the 1935 precedent that had limited a president’s firing authority
For more than 40 years, since his service as a young Reagan administration lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts has pressed for an exceptionally powerful US president, one who could fire the heads of independent agencies at any time.
The State of Politics: Race for Wisconsin Attorney General Could Be Very Close. Again
Rematch of Eric Toney against incumbent Democrat Josh Kaul will be hard fought.
Noussair Mazraoui: United ace inspires hard-fought World Cup win
Manchester United full-back Noussair Mazraoui continued his impressive run at the FIFA World Cup with another fine showing against Scotland. The Moroccan was an integral part of the African nation’s...
Marion Kozak obituary
Feminist, teacher and socialist campaigner who fought hard for children’s rights
Hugh Jackman almost 'pulled the plug' on ultra-violent 'Robin Hood'
Hugh Jackman has fought mutants, slayed vampires and gone toe-to-toe dancing with Zac Efron.
Marc Cucurella transfer news: Real Madrid reach agreement to sign Chelsea full-back
Real Madrid have struck a deal with Chelsea for Marc Cucurella; the move is a blow to incoming Blues boss Xabi Alonso, who is already short of experienced players; Cucurella was a priority signing for new Real manager Jose Mourinho; they fought off competition from Barcelona and Man City
Western homelands no longer surely safe in future war: NATO commander
The West has long enjoyed home countries staying safe as their militaries fought wars abroad. But the growing air threat has ended that security.
ENTERTAINMENT: Film tracks four emerging opera stars; MacArthur Museum screens ‘The Forgotten War’
The MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History screens the documentary “The Forgotten War,” examining the three years of heavy combat in the Korean War from the perspective of soldiers that fought it.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Nick Pachota flexes fundraising, first responder support in HD 74 bid
The Primary is already hard-fought, with multiple candidates taking significant strides forward as the race moves along.
Labor bill looms large in South Jordan House clash. Here’s where they are on other big issues.
Rep. Jordan Teuscher, who sponsored a bill limiting union's bargaining ability that labor groups were able to get repealed, is being challenged by Scott Stephenson, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the groups that fought for its repeal. Here is where they stand on other important issues.
Dodgers Edge Diamondbacks in Narrow Win
The Los Angeles Dodgers fought off an Arizona Diamondbacks comeback attempt, winning the second game of their series, 6-5.
Knicks expect battle as Spurs seek payback in NBA Finals
The New York Knicks are bracing for a hard-fought battle from San Antonio when the NBA Finals begin on Wednesday, while the Spurs seek revenge for a loss in the NBA Cup.The Knicks, who have not won an NBA title since 1973, captured the NBA Cup in-season tournament by beating the Spurs 124-113 in Las Vegas last December.