Trending threads

Demi Lovato reveals they are nonbinary and changing their pronouns


American pop star Demi Lovato is non-binary and has changed their pronouns to they/them, the singer has announced.

Singer Demi Lovato has revealed they are nonbinary and are changing their pronouns, telling fans they are "proud" to make the change after "a lot of self-reflective work."
Lovato, who rose to fame as a teenage movie star and has become one of the world's most popular singers over the past decade, made the announcement to fans in a video and tweets posted online on Wednesday.

"I feel that this best represents the fluidity I feel in my gender expression, and allows me to feel most authentic and true to the person I both know I am and still am discovering," the singer said.

Keep scrolling for a photo gallery from the career of Demi Lovato
Lovato added they came to the decision "after a lot of healing and self-reflective work."

"I'm still learning & coming into myself, & I don't claim to be an expert or a spokesperson. Sharing this with you now opens another level of vulnerability for me," Lovato said.

"I'm doing this for those out there that haven't been able to share who they truly are with their loved ones. Please keep living in your truths & know I am sending so much love your way."

The "Sorry Not Sorry" hitmaker recently shared their personal struggles with mental health and addiction in a YouTube documentary, which followed their journey prior to and following a near-fatal overdose in 2018.

"My doctors said that I had five to 10 more minutes," Lovato says in the documentary, speaking about the incident.
In a subsequent interview with EW, Lovato said ending their engagement to actor Max Ehrich helped them understand they are "just too queer" for such a commitment to a man at the moment.
"Regardless if drama is happening or not, I am too gay to marry a man right now," Lovato said. "I don't know if that will change in 10 years and I don't know if that'll never change, but I love accepting myself."

This will be a great documentary: Facing Nolan Ryan

One of the favorites at SXSW. Told by batters that faced him and teammates. I don’t live too far from his ranch down in Alvin. People still run into him at the store. Gruff but generally a nice guy

World's Major Polluters Caused $6 TRILLION in Harm Since 1990

Nearly $2tn of damage inflicted on other countries by US emissions

Research puts US ahead of China, Russia, India and Brazil in terms of global damage as climate expert says numbers ‘very stark’

The US has inflicted more than $1.9tn in damage to other countries from the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new analysis that has provided the first measurement of nations’ liability in stoking the climate crisis.

The huge volume of planet-heating gases pumped out by the US, the largest historical emitter, has caused such harm to other, mostly poor, countries through heatwaves, crop failures and other consequences that the US is responsible for $1.91tn in lost global income since 1990, the study found.

This puts the US ahead of China, currently the world’s leading emitter, Russian, India and Brazil as the next largest contributors to global economic damage through their emissions. Combined, these five leading culprits have caused a total of $6tn in losses worldwide, or about 11% of annual global GDP, since 1990 by fueling climate breakdown.

“It’s a huge number,” said Chris Callahan, a researcher at Dartmouth College and lead author of the study, of the overall economic loss. “It’s not surprising that the US and China are at the top of that list but the numbers really are very stark. For the first time, we can show that a country’s emissions can be traced to specific harm.”

The Dartmouth researchers combined a number of different models, showing factors such as emissions, local climate conditions and economic changes, to ascertain the precise impact of an individual country’s contribution to the climate crisis. They looked for these links over a period spanning 1990 to 2014, with the research published in the journal Climatic Change.

What they found was a perniciously uneven picture – rich nations in northerly latitudes, such as those in north America and Europe, have done the most to fuel climate change but have not yet been severely harmed by it economically. Countries such as Canada and Russia have even benefitted from longer agricultural growing seasons and reduced deaths from the cold as winters have warmed.

Trump trashes more loyal GOP followers. Republicans can't wait for Trump to abuse them again

Republicans continue embarrassing America by supporting a freakshow

Opinion It’s no wonder right-wing justices didn’t weigh Dobbs’s awful impact on women

With so many disturbing aspects of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade — the shoddy history, the contempt for stare decisis, etc. — it is easy to forget that one of the most heinous came from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
During oral arguments, Julie Rikelman, counsel for Jackson’s Women Health, had the temerity to spell out the ramifications that bans would have on the health and future of women denied an abortion. Roberts cut her off and plunged ahead in his search for justification for a 15-week limit on the procedure.

In short, women were irrelevant to him; damage done to their right to life and liberty was brushed off. After all, if you insist on using 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was adopted — and women couldn’t vote) to determine our deeply held values, of course you’ll decide women’s lives are secondary.


The Dobbs defenders dismiss victims of the case’s outcome as statistically insignificant. They insist that incidents of raped children are “hoaxes.” They play down the real-world results of Dobbs despite real-world examples and uncontroverted data documenting harm to women denied abortions.
Friday at noon: Chat with Jennifer Rubin about her columns, politics, policy and more
The definitive examination of abortion denial, Diana Greene Foster’s 2020 “The Turnaway Study,” looked at the lives of about 1,100 women over five years. Foster and a slew of researchers compared women denied abortion services because they were past the gestational limit with women at the same stage of pregnancy who got an abortion.
Especially with state legislators now deciding how much latitude to give women in controlling their own lives, you would think some of them might be interested in the results of the study, including the myths it obliterates and the suffering and maternal deaths it documents:

  • Less than 10 percent of women consider adoption, blowing a hole in antiabortion advocates’ notion of that option as an obvious, simple solution.
  • Time limits on abortion are not effective in preventing already rare “late term” abortions; the primary cause for delaying until the second trimester is late discovery of pregnancy (usually in young women with no pregnancy symptoms and irregular periods). How can women seek an early abortion if they don’t know they’re pregnant? Difficulty finding a provider also pushes abortions later — and bans and restrictions often add to delays by forcing women to plan travel out of state.
  • Forced-birth activists’ insistence that abortions are dangerous and/or harmful to women is utterly false. Much greater harm to women’s physical health, family situation, economic condition and life trajectory comes from being denied an abortion. Also, some 95 percent of women who had abortions are glad they did.
  • Waiting periods mostly create only later-term abortions. The study documents that the vast majority of women have already considered their decision.
  • Since poverty or lack of resources for existing children motivate a large share of abortions, the best “prevention” would be robust economic, social and educational assistance for pregnant women. Unfortunately, the forced-birth crowd largely isn’t interested.
  • Roughly 60 percent of women who get abortions have one or more children already, and many women plan to have children later, once they are ready. Abortion bans mean more unwanted pregnancies and fewer later, wanted pregnancies when the woman is confident she can parent.
  • Women rarely regret their abortions. After their abortion, 90 percent of women in the study felt “relief.” In the short run, women denied abortions experienced the greater emotional stress, and women who had abortions had long-term mental health outcomes no different than those of women who were denied. Physical health among those denied abortions was far worse; two in the study died.
The best available evidence tells us that forcing women to give birth against their will isn’t just monstrous on its face but will have horrific practical consequences. More women (especially poor women and women of color) will die, have serious health problems, wind up in poverty and on public assistance, have longer exposure to abusive partners, and see their education and life goals short-circuited. The bans will inflict hardship on existing children, too, who could become orphaned, lose sufficient care or fall into poverty. No wonder forced-birth hard-liners don’t want to listen to the facts — and the chief justice of the United States wants to gloss right over them.
The most definitive data unmistakably refute the claim that abortion bans are “good” for women. Few things could be more barbaric than robbing women of control over a critical life decision and forcing them to endure the bleak outcomes we know will follow.

Hancher Auditorium announces 50th season lineup, featuring Wynton Marsalis, Leslie Odom Jr. and more


Dana Kunze’s Watershow Productions

When: Aug. 26-28

Too Many Zooz

When: Aug. 26


Levitt Lecture: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein

When: Sept. 14

Leslie Odom Jr.

When: Sept. 24

Soweto Gospel Choir presents “HOPE: It’s Been a Long Time Coming”

When: Sept. 29


Aaron Diehl and Brandon Patrick George present “Songs of Black America”

When: Oct. 14

Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra with Wynton Marsalis “All Rise”

When: Oct. 22

Brentano String Quartet and Dawn Upshaw: “Dido Reimagined”

When: Oct. 25


UI Department of Dance’s Dance Gala 2022

When: Nov. 11-12


When: Nov. 14-16

Mannheim Steamroller Christmas by Chip Davis

When: Nov. 19



When: Dec. 1

Patti LaBelle

When: Dec. 9



When: Jan. 21

Chicago Symphony Orchestra

When: Jan. 29


Pilobolus: “Big Five-Oh!”

When: Feb. 4

Kronos Quartet: “At War With Ourselves – 400 Years of You”

When: Feb. 11

Dan + Claudia Zanes: “Let Love Be Your Guide”

When: Feb. 18


Academy of St Martin in the Fields

When: March 2

Club Hancher: Alexa Tarantino Band

When: March 8

Club Hancher: Isaiah J. Thompson Quartet

When: March 23

Club Hancher: Vuyo Sotashe Group

When: March 25

Yo-Yo Ma and Kathryn Stott

When: March 28


Conor Hanick with Keir GoGwilt and Jay Campbell

When: April 14

Emerson String Quartet

When: April 21

David Gonzalez and David Carlton: “Finding North”

When: April 28


American Ballet Theatre

When: May 6

The eggheads and the nannies are coming after your alcohol.....

They already came for tobacco, but we didn't do anything about it.

Will we do anything when they come for our booze again?

Bombshell alcohol study funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation finds only risks, zero benefits for young adults​

People under the age of 40 start risking their health if they consume any more than two teaspoons of wine or two and a half tablespoons of beer per day, a new study suggests.

The analysis—part of the wider Global Burden of Disease study—was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and published in The Lancet medical journal on Thursday.

It found that for young adults between the ages of 15 and 39, there were zero health benefits—only risks—associated with drinking alcohol.

Globally, almost 60% of people who consumed unsafe amounts of alcohol in 2020 fell into this age bracket, according to the findings.

Researchers said that for people aged between 15 and 39, the recommended amount of alcohol that could be consumed before risking their health was “a little more than one-tenth of a standard drink.”

They defined a standard drink as 3.4 fluid ounces of red wine or 12 fluid ounces of beer.

By this definition, the study’s findings suggested that alcohol stops being “safe” to consume for under-40s after around two teaspoons of red wine or two and a half tablespoons of beer.

The Global Burden of Disease study is massive in scope. It has been ongoing since 1990 and uses data from 204 countries and territories, and is described in the Lancet as "the most comprehensive effort to date to understand the changing health challenges around the world."

But the young-adult side of this isn't the whole story.

'Benefits' of drinking alcohol​

While the study warned that drinking only led to health risks for younger generations, the GBD research team found that for people over the age of 40 with no underlying health problems, consuming a small amount of alcohol each day could provide some health benefits.

These benefits included reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes.

An example of “a small amount” of alcohol was between one and two 3.4-ounce glasses of red wine, the study’s authors said.

Globally, men were far more likely to drink harmful amounts of alcohol than women, the study found, with researchers stating that of the individuals who consumed harmful amounts of alcohol in 2020, 77% were male.

“Our message is simple: Young people should not drink, but older people may benefit from drinking small amounts,” Dr. Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said in a news release.

She acknowledged, however, that this “may not be realistic,” but added that it is important that people make informed decisions about the impact of alcohol on their health.

The study echoes findings from some earlier studies that have suggested there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Last year, an Oxford University study of more than 25,000 people found that there was “no safe dose of alcohol” when it came to brain health.

Meanwhile, an Irish study published in May concluded that alcohol may pose greater risks to the heart than previously thought, with one of the authors urging people to limit their weekly consumption to less than a bottle of wine or three and a half cans of beer.

Islamic State in Afghanistan

One of the Pentagon's top civilian officials revealed that assessment at a Senate hearing Tuesday morning, seemingly surprising some members on the dais at a time of widespread scrutiny into whether the Biden administration made the right decision to withdraw fully from its longest war zone.
"It's precisely that threat that we need to remain vigilant, and disrupt," Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday morning – the latest hearing into the calamitous U.S. pullout from Afghanistan. "We actually are fairly certain they have the intention to do so."
Kahl said the terrorist network, known as ISIS-K, ISKP or IS-Khorasan, among others, "could potentially" develop the capability to launch external attacks within six-12 months. Likewise al-Qaida, which maintains safe havens in Afghanistan now under control of its allies the Taliban, "could potentially" have that capability in one-two years, Kahl added, citing U.S. intelligence assessments.

Analysts believe the Islamic State group's Afghan presence represents perhaps the most potent foreign threat to America.
"Right now, ISIS-K is probably the most capable in terms of orchestrating a plot that could be a viable threat to the U.S. homeland," Colin Clarke, senior research fellow at private intelligence firm The Soufan Group, tells U.S. News. Other Islamic State group affiliates, including in West Africa and Central Africa, have momentum but are more focused on local issues.
Others believe the threat timeline ISIS-K presents is not unique.