Latest

Moscow, July 20: Soviet space scientists spent seven cliff-hanging minutes during the second docking operation between Apollo and Soyuz-19 as the two spacecraft buckled and rolled and even began to rotate, a Soviet space official revealed to-day. Dr. Vladimir Syromyatnikov, the head of the Soviet-American task force which designed and built the docking mechanism used

In a small hilltop town above Italy’s Adriatic coast, where streets named after foreigners are almost nonexistent, one bears the decidedly un-Italian moniker of a farmer from Tasmania’s north-west. The street, Via Harvey Ling (Harvey Ling Way), in Montenero di Bisaccia, honours a remarkable friendship that started a world away during the dark days of World War II, survived decades across continents and continues today through two families. Some of those relatives of Francis “Harvey” Ling gathered recently in the street with his name to commemorate a story that began with young village man Croce Travaglini joining the Italian military, being captured by the Allies in Libya, shipped to India, then Australia in 1944 as a prisoner of war, and, finally, to a corner of Tasmania. There, Harvey and his family toiled on their 30-hectare dairy and vegetable farm at West Pine, near Penguin, doing their best to help the war effort during a labour shortage. Harvey applied to a government scheme assigning POWs as farm workers and was sent Croce. Croce Travaglini worked on the Ling family’s farm. (Supplied: Lisbeth Alley) For three years Croce, who died at the age of 90 in 2010, worked and lived with the Lings before returning to his home at the end of the war. His great-nephew, Giuseppe Chiappini, says Croce carried a love for the Ling family for the rest of his life and, to ensure the “incredible” story of their friendship was kept from the “dark of the past”, he asked the local authorities to name a street after Harvey.  Author Joanne Tapiolas, who has researched the history of Italian POWs in Australia for her book Walking in Their Boots, says their personal tales give colour to stories captured mostly in black-and-white images. Italian POWs in Australia Harvey and Ruby Ling pose with their sons, Laurie and Roley, who were sent to fight in the war. (Supplied: Julie Orr) During World War II, as fighting drained the country’s workforce, more than 13,000 Italian POWs were sent to work on farms or government projects, such as wood chopping for industry, or growing produce. After a successful trial in Victoria and New South Wales in 1943, farmers were invited to apply to have an Italian POW work on their property. Joanne said some farmers refused to take part, but the “dire” shortage of agricultural labour left most with no option. Positive feedback from the trial also encouraged uptake. “It was for the betterment of everyone that these men weren’t behind barbed wire but they were out physically doing something important and worthwhile,” Joanne said. “Languishing behind barbed wire was not good for the mind, the soul, the body.” A group of Italian POWs behind the wire perimeter fence of Liverpool POW and internment camp. (Supplied: Australian War Memorial – 123706) Some Italian POWs worried about how they would be treated and were reluctant to work on farms, but the sight of a family on their arrival at a farm often made their fears melt away, Joanne said. “It was not like they were home but they were in a family environment and they would be safe.” A letter written by an Italian POW in Tasmania to fellow POWs in a camp in NSW shows how deeply affecting and comforting the presence of family could be. “He said, ‘The work keeps me busy … at the end of the day, I pick up the little girl, I put her in my arms and I sing her Italian songs,’” Joanne said. “He said: ‘I am happy, I am happy’.” A 1944 document praising Italian POWs in Tasmania (NAA: A376 T321). (Supplied: Joanne Tapiolas) Mixed response to workforce Many farms and rural communities welcomed the Italian POWs, but townsfolk were not always accepting, Joanne said. While farmers had little option but to employ a POW or face potential bankruptcy from reduced output or a spoiled harvest due to lack of workers, some distrusted or disliked the Italians.  Italian POWs harvesting a crop of onions on a vegetable farm. (Supplied: Australian War Memorial – 063809) For many, they represented the enemy and an affront to returned soldiers or soldiers still fighting abroad. The healthy appearance of the POWs, who had access to fresh and plentiful food on farms that “townies” could not access, stirred further resentment. “They’ve got fresh eggs, fresh milk, butter, chickens and access to bacon,” Joanne said. “But town people, they’ve got rations, they can’t have butter, but they’ve heard the Italian POWs have butter.” Julie Orr, granddaughter of Harvey, said Croce experienced discrimination in Tasmania, but what stood out to the Italian POW was Harvey’s outrage and support. “[Pop] took a load of potatoes down to the wharf and the wharfies refused to load it because he had Croce with him, he was furious,” Julie said. “Things like that stood out in Croce’s mind, that this man would stand up for him.” Francis “Harvey” and Ruby Ling. (Supplied: Julie Orr) Lifelong connections forged Croce kept contact with the Ling family through letters and cards until his death in 2010, more than six decades after living in Tasmania. Giuseppe assisted him in writing to the family by translating his messages into English. Today, he speaks with Harvey’s descendants through video calls and online messaging but members of the two families have met in person over the decades. Of particular significance was a visit to Italy in the 1980s by a granddaughter of the Lings, Lisbeth Alley, who was able to locate Croce by asking neighbours and townsfolk about his whereabouts. Lisbeth Alley (on right) with Croce Travaglini and family in 1988. (Supplied: Lisbeth Alley) “I took them to my great-uncle’s house and you can’t imagine how happy my uncle was when he had the opportunity to meet a member of the family that saved him from the war,” Giuseppe said. “Mr Harvey treated him like a part of the family … I grew up with this story in my mind and my heart.”

A cattle farmer in Western Australia’s South West has welcomed the state’s first aerial cull of feral deer. The state government decided to take a stand on the pest after surveys in the Esperance and Harvey regions revealed a growing number of feral deer. Cattle farmer Andrew Keep said he regularly saw groups of up to 12 deer jump the fence into his paddock to graze overnight. “They leave a lot of tracks in our muddy paddocks, so I know there is a growing problem,” he said. Andrew Keep has given permission for aerial culling on his farm. (Supplied: Andrew Keep) Teams of sharpshooters in helicopters will fly over certain properties, dense bushland and forests, using thermal cameras to spot the deer.  Mr Keep said he was glad the government was taking steps to “nip it in the bud” and provided permission for teams to shoot deer if they saw them on his 64-hectare property, east of Harvey. “If they let these problems fester, it becomes uncontrollable,” he said. ‘Before it’s too late’ Similar aerial culls of feral deer are common in eastern parts of Australia, where the pest’s population size has swelled. Feral deer impact on the environment and agriculture by damaging crops, causing soil erosion, and competing with native animals and livestock for food. An aerial feral deer survey was conducted in parts of WA’s south. (Supplied: DPIRD) Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) manager of vertebrate pests Tim Thompson said it was important to get on top of the problem in WA before it was “too late”. “We have nowhere near the feral deer population or impacts that they do over east, so we’re in a unique situation,” he said. “[We] have an opportunity to do something now before populations potentially grow and get bigger and we have the same issues they have over east.” Leschenault Biosecurity Group executive officer Kate Duzevich agreed aerial culling could be the most humane and cost-effective way to manage feral deer in south-west WA. She said early action was vital to avoid the kind of large-scale damage seen in other areas of the country. “I believe this is the most humane, most cost-effective, and realistic control tool that can be deployed in management,” Ms Duzevich said. “If you’re in the business of growing pasture, the physical presence of deer, their hooves churning up soil, the wallowing, [is] damaging productive land.” Deer can damage paperbark trees by rubbing against them. (Supplied: DPIRD) Mr Thompson said DPIRD’s preliminary surveys used thermal technology to determine how widespread WA’s deer population was. “We know that there is anywhere from one deer per square kilometre to four deer per square kilometre,” he said. DPIRD estimated about 700 deer lived in Harvey, with 660 in Esperance and 170 in Muchea, north of Perth.  Are aerial culls safe? Mr Thompson said his team was working with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions to ensure the aerial shootings were done as safely as possible. He said some areas and roads would be closed off to the public, similar to how sections were managed during prescribed burns. “There will be absolutely no risk of any sort for people, particularly camping and things like that,” he said. Mr Thompson said the state government was also working alongside native title groups to ensure no heritage or sacred sites would be affected. Thermal imaging will be used to find the deer. (Supplied: ACT Parks and Conservation) Mr Keep said he was not concerned about the sharpshooters flying over his property in search of feral deer. “The helicopters will be first thing in the morning at dawn when the thermal imaging system will be able to pick up the heat signatures … so they could quite clearly identify a deer, pig or even a cow, so they won’t be fatally shooting cattle,” he said. “I’m pretty sure if they want it to be successful, they’d be very responsible in undertaking this; otherwise, there would be huge blowbacks.” The RSPCA was contacted for comment on the animal welfare implications of aerial deer culling, but declined to respond. Read More

In a recent interview with The Times, Superman director James Gunn said that his new blockbuster tells the story of “an immigrant.” He also explained it was a story about “basic human kindness.” But that first comment — about Superman’s foreign origins — is the one that set off some pundits on the right. Fox News commentator Jesse Watters joked on air: “You know what it says on his cape? MS-13.” Ben Shapiro blasted Gunn and the Hollywood left for being out of touch with everyday American audiences: “The reality [is] that Hollywood is so far to the left that they cannot take a core piece of Americana and just say it’s about America.” But, Grant Morrison — author of the seminal comic book series All-Star Superman — said the conservative backlash ignores the leftist origins of the world’s most famous superhero. Not only was Superman created by the sons of Jewish immigrants, but those very first comics portrayed their character as a “socialist figure.” Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. In one comic published in 1939, Superman is seen shielding young thieves from police because he figured the kids were victims of poverty, then tearing down slums and forcing authorities to build low-rent housing. Before becoming the “Man of Steel,” Superman was “The Champion of the Oppressed.” Gunn has said that All-Star Superman was a big influence on his new film. Morrison sat down with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram to talk about where Superman came from, how the character has evolved, and why he will endure. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. How did you get into Superman? What did this character mean to you? I grew up on the west coast of Scotland next to an American naval and nuclear base. My parents were anti-nuclear activists. My father was a World War II soldier who became a peacenik. So, my big fear in the world was the atom bomb, and I associated it with the Americans, but the Americans also brought the comics. Then I discovered Superman. And although I knew no real Superman was coming to save me from an actual atom bomb, metaphorically he really solved a lot of problems for my head when I was a little kid. Those are the primal roots for me, and they’re quite deep. So yeah, getting a chance to do that character, sitting here overlooking that same stretch of water where we did the protests…To write All-Star Superman kind of defies the forces of entropy. If anything survives in my career, it will be that one book. Who was the Superman that you created in that series? We went for an older Superman. The basic idea was: What if Superman was dying and he had a year to live? Basically, it’s a part of Lex Luthor’s scheme to send Superman to the sun, and the solar radiation overcharges Superman’s cells, so they begin to decay and die. Basically, Superman’s dying of cancer. What would this man do in the last 12 months of his life to leave the Earth a better place than he found it? Were you surprised to find out that James Gunn wanted to relaunch this character and relaunch an entire cinematic universe with your story about a dying Superman? James didn’t necessarily take the dying part. His is a younger Superman. But I think he certainly took the character as we decided to define it, and he saw something that he could work with. Instead of Superman having flaws, let’s present a fictional character who doesn’t have flaws. You know, he has problems of his own. He still can’t get the girl. He still works for a boss in an office, but he’s Superman. He’s a kind of everyman whose life happens at a much higher scale. He’s got an unruly dog, but his unruly dog can laser his own dinner and cook a steak. His unruly dog can fly through buildings, but he’s still dealing with an unruly dog. In previous attempts people have asked: What would Superman be like if he was in the real world? Which to me is an absurd question. The only existence Superman has in the real world is as a comic book or movie character, and that’s where he is most useful and most functional, as far as I’m concerned. He’s a metaphor. He is an allegory. He stands for everything that is good in us. It sounds like there have been at least some iterations of this character throughout his near-century of existence — from your dying version to this ideal version, to this all-powerful version. But I believe Superman even started as a bit of a tough guy, a headbasher, and maybe even a left-wing revolutionary. Can you tell us about the non-Kryptonian origins of this character, and how he came to be on Earth? Well, he arrived in Cleveland, Ohio. He was created by two teenagers, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who’d met at school. Jerry was the writer and Joe was the artist. They wanted to work for newspapers. Newspaper syndication was the place to go for cartoons back then. They were working on this notion called “The Superman.” The original version was an evil bald guy who eventually became Lex Luthor in the Superman story. But after a few tries, they hit on this fabulous notion of: Let’s give him a wrestling costume with a cape so that we can track his movement across the panels, and make him very colorful so that he’s memorable. The greatest addition to the design was to put his monogram on his chest so that the character’s entire identity was summed up in this very simple advertising motif that people can remember and people can also

Earlier this month, Elon Musk said he wanted to form a new political party. He’d been teasing the idea ever since clashing with President Donald Trump over his “big, beautiful bill,” which Musk accused of exploding the deficit. In June, Musk ran a poll on X asking users whether it was “time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” More than 5 million people responded, and 80 percent voted yes. Then, on July 5, Musk announced he was forming the American Party in hopes of giving voters their “back [their] freedom.” Those who follow Musk closely, like Bloomberg Businessweek national correspondent Joshua Green, have said Musk’s latest project is in line with his pursuit of political power and attention. “I think he thought he’d essentially bought that by backing Donald Trump to the tune of $300 million in the last election,” Green said previously on Today, Explained. “And Trump turned on him, ousted him, took away his EV tax credits, didn’t cut the deficit, trashed him on social media. And now I think Elon is humiliated and looking for a way to respond and hit back.” Trump has called Musk’s third-party proposal “ridiculous.” And the billionaire appeared to have moved from his third obsession by mid-July — at least on X — posting instead about Europe’s fertility rate and running damage control for the antisemitic rants of his AI platform Grok. But regardless of whether he follows through on the “America Party,” Musk appears to have hit a chord with an American electorate disillusioned by the two-party system. On Today, Explained, co-host Noel King dove into voters’ desires, the history of third parties, and possible solutions to the two-party stranglehold with Lee Drutman, senior fellow at the New America think tank and author of Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You are not a big fan of the two-party system. You know, I think it’s outlived its usefulness. I think America is a pretty big, diverse country these days, you may have noticed. And to fit everybody into just two parties seems like kind of insanity, and it’s clearly not working. Also, it has divided this country into two teams — the red and the blue team — that have learned to absolutely hate each other. It’s created these artificial divisions around this zero-sum, winner-take-all electoral politics that is just really breaking down the foundations of democracy in this country. So, I think there was a time when it worked reasonably well for certain reasons, but that time is in the past. You will know that Elon Musk agrees with you. He says he wants to start a third party. He ran one of his polls [on X], and the question was: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” I’m looking at that poll now. Eighty percent of people said yes, 20 percent said no. How does that match up with reality in the US? Well, there are two parts to that question. One is: How many people want a third party? And then two is: How many people want that party to be somewhere in the middle? Now, the first part: How many people want a third party? That 80 percent is a little bit high. There might be some selection bias there, but it is close to polls that I’ve seen. Generally, about 60 to 70 percent of Americans say there ought to be more than two parties when polled. So, overwhelmingly, Americans say they want more than two parties. Now, is the party that they want a party in the center? That’s less clear. I think people’s perception of the political center depends on themselves. [Most] people think that they’re more reasonable and they’re more moderate. But in reality, when you look at the viewpoints of the American electorate, as I’ve done repeatedly, you see that the support for a genuine center party is limited to maybe 10 to 15 percent. But there is a lot of interest in parties that are maybe not as traditional. Third-party candidates do run for office all the time in the United States, they very rarely win. If so many voters want more options, why don’t we have more people in elected office from third parties? Here you’re hitting on the core problem, which is that we have a single-winner system of elections. So in a single-winner election, third parties become spoilers and wasted votes, because one of the two major parties is going to win every election. So, voting for a third party is just basically a protest vote, or maybe it could spoil the election. And as a result, most people don’t want to do that because they think, well, I want to vote for somebody who at least has a chance of winning. And, more importantly, people who have ambition in politics say, well, I’m not going to waste my time with one of these fringe parties. I want to actually win. So you get minor parties that are mostly cranks and weirdos and people say, well, I’d like to vote for another party, but not that third party. What’s the recent history of third-party candidates? Serious third-party candidates at a national level? I have a vague memory of Ross Perot, but I couldn’t give you many details. It was the nineties. How serious have third-party candidates been over time? Well, Ross Perot is the most recent third-party candidate to actually get a pretty decent share of the electorate. He got almost 20 percent of the electorate, although he didn’t win a single state. A lot of people remember Ralph Nader in 2000, who only

For the past two years, Donald Trump and the Republican Party could reasonably claim to have broad support for their anti-immigrant agenda. The public wanted less immigration, Trump promised to provide it, and much of the public trusted him to act. But things look a lot different now that he’s actually implementing that agenda. After a years-long surge in opposition to immigration, Americans’ views seem to be getting more positive toward it, a score of new data suggest. And while there’s still some support for some of Trump’s policies, Americans are souring on the extreme parts of Trump’s approach. Six months into Trump’s term, the American public’s tendency to swing in the opposite direction of the president’s policy vision seems to be reaching immigration as well. And compounding this apparent “thermostatic” shift is that it’s happening as Trump actually achieves what he promised. Crossings at the southern border hit a historic low last month, and he has secured billions in additional funding for border security and expanded enforcement operations. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. What gives? Is the public really that fickle? Is Trump overreaching? And perhaps more importantly, will this shift be durable? The data we have offers some mixed answers, but it largely points in a worrisome direction for Trump and his party. As with the economy, government efficiency, foreign policy, and trade, Americans seemed to like Trump’s ideas in theory. Seeing them in practice is another matter. What we know for sure: The public is warming to immigration The high-quality public opinion data we have shows a pretty dramatic reversal in the public’s attitudes toward immigration. That shift is astounding given how aggressively the public was embracing an anti-immigrant attitude during the Biden years. As a refresher: Worsened by record asylum claims and spikes in border crossings, public sentiment moved quickly toward restrictionism and in favor of Trump’s campaign proposals. Effective campaigning and sensationalizing by Republicans for most of 2022 and 2023, along with media scrutiny of the effects of immigrant arrivals in major cities, only heightened the public’s concerns ahead of the 2024 campaign year. And so, for the past two years, the country seemed primed to tolerate more aggressive enforcement and stricter border policies. Last year marked a kind of watershed in this vibe shift: It was the first time since 2019 that a plurality of Americans labeled immigration as “the most important problem facing the US,” and the first time since 2005 that a majority of the country wanted less immigration, per Gallup’s tracking surveys. Polls were routinely capturing significant openness to mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, holding undocumented immigrants in large detention centers or encampments, and a range of other policies that seem extreme when judged by how the public felt when Trump first entered politics, centering a similar message. Those attitudes explain why Trump’s campaign bet that pledging harsher immigration policies would be a political boon. And they explain why popular support for Trump’s handling of immigration remained resilient for the first few months of this presidency, even as his other approval ratings began to slide. But that durability has begun to crack. In Gallup polling, the share of Americans who want to lower rates of immigration has dropped from 55 percent in 2024 — the highest level in two decades — to 30 percent this year. Meanwhile, the share who want rates of immigration to stay the same or increase has sharply risen, across all cohorts, including Republicans. And more generally, after a steady increase over the Biden presidency in the share of Americans who say immigration is a “bad thing” for the US, the trend has reversed. A record share of the country now says immigration is a good thing for the country — 79 percent. That figure is even higher than it was back in Trump’s first term, when he first tried to crack down on both legal and illegal migration, asylum, and the southern border, and similarly provoked the country into supporting immigration. Gallup’s poll, and the Pew Research Center’s own surveys, also show some other signs of the public’s attitudes straying from the Trumpist position. Support has risen toward pro-immigrant policies. Compared to a year ago, more Americans support legalization proposals for both DREAMers (those undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children) and for undocumented immigrants in general. Both proposals now have the support of at least eight in 10 Americans. Conversely, support for more aggressive enforcement policies has declined: Fewer Americans support “significantly” hiring more Border Patrol agents and “deporting all immigrants” to their home countries than did a year ago. The Pew survey adds some important context for these shifts: Americans broadly disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration so far, and specifically reject Trump’s highest-profile moves. Some 60 percent of Americans oppose Trump’s suspension of asylum programs and Temporary Protected Status policies. More than half oppose increasing ICE raids on workplaces and building more holding centers for undocumented immigrants awaiting deportation cases, for which Trump’s recent tax cuts and spending law allocates $75 billion in funding. And only 37 percent of Americans back the idea of deporting undocumented immigrants to El Salvador, as epitomized by the controversy over Kilmar Abrego Garcia. As CNN’s Aaron Blake pointed out this month, polls over the past few weeks all suggest something similar: Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans are feeling like Trump, and his administration, are going “too far” in how they’re enforcing their policies, particularly deportations. And the overall trend, shown in Gallup, Pew, and in polling averages, is declining approval of Trump’s approach so far. What is less clear: How durable this dissatisfaction with Trump will be Still, the data paints a more mixed picture of just how long and steady this openness to immigration will remain. And it’s not clear if it will be enough for the public to act against Trump. The Pew survey — which was conducted

NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — James Gunn’s “Superman” showed staying power in its second weekend at North American box offices, collecting $57.3 million in ticket sales and remaining the No. 1 movie in cinemas, according to studio estimates Sunday. None of the week’s new releases — “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” “Smurfs,” and “Eddington” — came close to touching Warner Bros. and DC Studios’ superhero success. “Superman” dipped 54% from its domestic opening, an average decline for a big summer film. In two weeks, “Superman” has grossed $406.8 million worldwide, a good start for the movie DC Studios is banking on to restart its movie operations. A big test looms next weekend, when the Walt Disney Co. releases Marvel’s “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.” Strong audience scores and good reviews should help propel the $225 million-budgeted “Superman” toward profitability in the coming weeks. For Warner Bros. and DC Studios, “Superman” is key to kicking off a 10-year plan for the comic book adaptation studio. Co-heads Gunn and Peter Safra were tasked with rehabilitating the flagging operation. Next on tap are the films “Supergirl” and “Clayface” in 2026. But “Superman” is far from flying solo in theaters right now. Universal Pictures’ “Jurassic World: Rebirth” came in second this weekend, with $23.4 million in its third week of release. The seventh “Jurassic” movie, this one starring Scarlett Johansson, held its own despite the competition from “Superman.” In three weeks, it accrued $648 million worldwide. Apple Studios and Warner Bros.’ “F1: The Movie” has also shown legs, especially internationally. In its fourth weekend, the Brad Pitt racing drama dipped just 26% domestically, bringing in $9.6 million in North America, and another $29.5 million overseas. Its global total stands at $460.8 million. But both of the biggest new releases — Sony Pictures’ “I Know What You Did Last Summer” and Paramount Pictures’ “Smurfs” — fell flat. “I Know What You Did Last Summer” opened with $13 million, a fair result for a movie budgeted at a modest $18 million, but a disappointing opening for a well-known horror franchise. The film, directed by Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, is set 27 years after the 1997 original. Teenagers played by Madelyn Cline and Chase Sui Wonders are again haunted for covering up a car accident. The movie’s reviews (38% “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes) were poor for “I Know What You Did Last Summer” and audiences graded it similarly. The film notched a “C+” on CinemaScore. The original collected $72.6 million in its domestic run in 1997. Paramount Pictures’ “Smurfs” debuted in fourth place this weekend with $11 million. The latest big-screen reboot for the woodland blue creatures prominently features Rihanna as the voice of Smurfette. But reviews (21% “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes) were terrible. Audiences were kinder, giving it a “B+” on CinemaScore, but the $58 million-budgeted release will depend largely on its international sales. In 56 overseas markets, “Smurfs” earned $22.6 million. Ari Aster’s “Eddington” opened with $4.2 million on 2,111 screens for A24. Since its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, “Eddington” has been particularly divisive. The pandemic-set Western features Joaquin Phoenix as the right-wing sheriff of a small New Mexico town who faces off with its liberal mayor (Pedro Pascal). While Aster’s first film, 2018’s “Heredity” ($82.8 million worldwide against a $10 million budget) helped establish A24 as an indie powerhouse, but the less-than-stellar launch of “Eddington” marks the second box-office disappointment for Aster. His 2023 film “Beau Is Afraid” cost $35 million to make but collected just $12.4 million worldwide. “Eddington” cost about $25 million to produce. Audiences gave it a “C+” on CinemaScore. None of Aster’s previous films have been graded higher. Yet collectively, Hollywood is enjoying a very good summer. According to data firm Comscore, the 2025 summer box office is up 15.9% over the same period last year, with the year-to-date sales running 15% ahead of 2025. Summer ticket sales have amassed about $2.6 billion domestically, according to Comscore. With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore: 1. “Superman,” $57.3 million. 2. “Jurassic World Rebirth,” $23.4 million. 3. “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” $13 million. 4. “Smurfs,” $11 million. 5, “F1: The Movie,” $9.6 million. 6. “How to Train Your Dragon,” $5.4 million. 7. “Eddington,” $4.3 million. 8. “Elio,” $2 million. 9. “Lilo & Stitch,” $1.5 million. 10. “28 Years Later,” $1.3 million. Read More

TOKYO — The governing coalition of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is likely to lose a majority in the smaller of Japan’s two parliamentary houses in a key election Sunday, according to exit polls, worsening the country’s political instability. Voters were deciding half of the 248 seats in the upper house, the less powerful of the two chambers in Japan’s Diet. Ishiba has set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which means his Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito need to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already have. That would mean a big retreat from the 141 seats they had before the election. Exit poll results released seconds after the ballots closed Sunday night mostly showed a major setback for Ishiba’s coalition. Japan’s NHK television projected a range of 32-51 seats for the prime minister’s coalition, while other networks projected it would win just over 40 seats. The LDP alone is projected to win from 32 to 35 seats, the fewest won by the party, which still is the No. 1 party in the parliament. “It’s a tough situation. I take it humbly and sincerely,” Ishiba told a live interview with NHK. He said that the poor showing was because his government’s measures to combat price increase have yet to reach many people. Ishiba showed his determination to stay on to tackle economic and security challenges. “I will fulfill my responsibility as head of the No. 1 party and work for the country.” A poor performance in the election would not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader, but it would certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan’s political stability. Ishiba would face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner. Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors have also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign. Sunday’s vote comes after Ishiba’s coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his unpopular government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan’s traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages. U.S. President Donald Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations and the lack of sales of U.S. autos and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect Aug. 1 has been another blow for Ishiba. Ishiba has resisted any compromise before the election, but the prospect for a breakthrough after the election is just as unclear because the minority government would have difficulty forming a consensus with the opposition. Frustrated voters are rapidly turning to emerging populist parties. The eight main opposition groups, however, are too fractured to forge a common platform as a united front and gain voter support as a viable alternative. The emerging populist party Sanseito stands out with the toughest anti-foreigner stance, with its “Japanese First” platform that proposes a new agency to handle policies related to foreigners. The party’s populist platform also includes anti-vaccine, anti-globalism and favors traditional gender roles. Conservative to centrist opposition groups, including the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, or CDPJ, the DPP, and Sanseito have gained significant ground at the Liberal Democrats’ expense. The CDPJ was projected to win up to 26 seats, while the DPP could quadruple to 17 seats from four, exit poll results show. Sanseito is expected to surge to 16 from just one. None of the opposition parties said that they were open to cooperating with the governing coalition. CDPJ leader Yoshihiko Noda told NHK that his priority is to form an alliance among the opposition. The spread of xenophobic rhetoric in the election campaign and on social media has triggered protests by human rights activists and alarmed foreign residents. LDP has almost continuously dominated Japan’s postwar politics, contributing to its political stability and social conformity. Voters are divided between stability and change, with some voicing concern about escalating xenophobia. Yuko Tsuji, a 43-year-old consultant, who came to a polling station inside a downtown Tokyo gymnasium with her husband, said they both support LDP for stability and unity. and voted “for candidates who won’t fuel division.” “If the ruling party doesn’t govern properly, the conservative base will drift toward extremes. So I voted with the hope that the ruling party would tighten things up,” she said. Self-employed Daiichi Nasu, 57, who came to vote with his dog, said that he hopes for a change toward a more inclusive and diverse society, with more open immigration and gender policies such as allowing married couples to keep separate surnames. “That’s why I voted for the CDPJ,” he said. “I want to see progress on those fronts.” ___ Reeno Hashimoto contributed to this report. Read More

Officials in Indonesia say a passenger ship carrying hundreds of people has caught fire at sea off Sulawesi island ByGRACEY WAKARI Associated Press MANADO, Indonesia — A passenger ferry carrying hundreds of people caught fire at sea on Sunday off Sulawesi island in Indonesia, killing at least five people, officials said. More than 280 people were rescued and evacuation efforts were ongoing. The KM Barcelona 5 was headed to Manado, the capital of North Sulawesi province, from Talaud, an island district in the province when it caught fire in waters near Talise, said Vice Adm. Denih Hendrata, commander of the Indonesian Fleet Command. He said that three navy ships had been deployed, and 284 passengers and crew members had been evacuated so far. The rescue operation included assistance from local fishermen, who saved some survivors wearing life jackets as they were drifting to nearby islands in the choppy waters. Rescuers retrieved five bodies, including a pregnant woman. There were no immediate reports of injuries, and no exact figures of passengers and crew members onboard the ferry. “We are still focusing on evacuation efforts,” Hendrata said, adding that the cause of the fire was being investigated. Photos and videos released by the National Search and Rescue Agency showed terrified passengers, mostly wearing life jackets, jumping into the sea. Orange flames and black smoke billowed from the burning vessel. Indonesia is an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands where ferries are a common method of travel. Disasters occur regularly, with weak safety enforcement often blamed. Residents of Mentawai Islands found several people stranded on July 14 after a speedboat carrying 18 people capsized during a storm the day before, authorities said. All were in good condition. A ferry sank near Indonesia’s resort island of Bali early this month, leaving at least 19 dead and 16 others missing. A two-week search operation involved more than 1,000 rescuers, three navy ships, 15 boats, a helicopter and divers. Sponsored Content by Taboola Read More

NEW YORK — With summer in full swing in the United States, retail executives are sweating a different season. It’s less than 22 weeks before Christmas, a time when businesses that make and sell consumer goods usually nail down their holiday orders and prices. But President Donald Trump’s vacillating trade policies have complicated those end-of-year plans. Balsam Hill, which sells artificial trees and other decorations online, expects to publish fewer and thinner holiday catalogs because the featured products keep changing with the tariff rates the president sets, postpones and revises. “The uncertainty has led us to spend all our time trying to rejigger what we’re ordering, where we’re bringing it in, when it’s going to get here,” Mac Harman, CEO of Balsam Hill parent company Balsam Brands, said. “We don’t know which items we’re going to have to put in the catalog or not.” Months of confusion over which foreign countries’ goods may become more expensive to import has left a question mark over the holiday shopping season. U.S. retailers often begin planning for the winter holidays in January and typically finalize the bulk of their orders by the end of June. The seesawing tariffs already have factored into their calculations. The consequences for consumers? Stores may not have the specific gift items customers want come November and December. Some retail suppliers and buyers scaled back their holiday lines rather than risking a hefty tax bill or expensive imports going unsold. Businesses still are setting prices but say shoppers can expect many things to cost more, though by how much depends partly on whether Trump’s latest round of “reciprocal” tariffs kicks in next month. The lack of clarity has been especially disruptive for the U.S. toy industry, which sources nearly 80% of its products from China. American toy makers usually ramp up production in April, a process delayed until late May this year after the president put a 145% tariff on Chinese goods, according to Greg Ahearn, president and CEO of the Toy Association, an industry trade group. The U.S. tariff rate may have dropped significantly from its spring high — a truce in the U.S.-China trade war is set to expire on Aug. 12 — but continues to shape the forthcoming holiday period. Manufacturing activity is way down from a year ago for small- and medium-sized U.S. toy companies, Ahearn said. The late start to factory work in China means holiday toys are only now arriving at U.S. warehouses, industry experts said. A big unknown is whether tariffs will keep stores from replenishing supplies of any breakout hit toys that emerge in September, said James Zahn, editor-in-chief of the trade publication Toy Book. In the retail world, planning for Christmas in July usually involves mapping out seasonal marketing and promotion strategies. Dean Smith, who co-owns independent toy stores JaZams in Princeton, New Jersey, and Lahaska, Pennsylvania, said he recently spent an hour and a half running through pricing scenarios with a Canadian distributor because the wholesale cost of some products increased by 20%. Increasing his own prices that much might turn off customers, Smith said, so he explored ways to “maintain a reasonable margin without raising prices beyond what consumers would accept.” He ordered a lower cost Crazy Forts building set so he would have the toy on hand and left out the kids’ edition of the Anomia card game because he didn’t think customers would pay what he would have to charge. “In the end, I had to eliminate half of the products that I normally buy,” Smith said. Hilary Key, owner of The Toy Chest in Nashville, Indiana, said she tries to get new games and toys in early most years to see which ones she should stock up on for the winter holidays. This year, she abandoned her product testing for fear any delayed orders would incur high import taxes. Meanwhile, vendors of toys made in China and elsewhere bombarded Key with price increase notices. For example, Schylling, which makes Needoh, Care Bear collectibles and modern versions of nostalgic toys like My Little Pony, increased prices on orders by 20%, according to Key. All the price hikes are subject to change if the tariff situation changes again. Key worries her store won’t have as compelling a product assortment as she prides herself on carrying. “My concern is not that I’ll have nothing, because I can bring in more books. I can bring in more gifts, or I can bring in just things that are manufactured in other places,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean I’m going to have the best stock for every developmental age, for every special need.” The retail industry may have to keep taking a whack-a-mole approach to navigating the White House’s latest tariff ultimatums and temporary reprieves. Last week, the president again reset the rates on imports from Brazil, the European Union, Mexico, and other major trading partners but said they would not take effect until Aug. 1. The brief pause should extend the window importers have to bring in seasonal merchandise at the current baseline tariff of 10%. The Port of Los Angeles had the busiest June in its 117-year history after companies raced to secure holiday shipments, and July imports look strong so far, according to Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director. “In my view, we’re seeing a peak season push right now to bring in goods ahead of potentially higher tariffs later this summer,” Seroka said Monday. The pace of port activity so far this year reflects a “tariff whipsaw effect” — imports slowing when tariffs kick in and rebounding when they’re paused, he said. “For us consumers, lower inventory levels, fewer selections and higher prices are likely as we head into the holidays.” Smith, who co-owns the two JaZams stores with his partner, Joanne Farrugia, said they started placing holiday orders two months earlier than usual for “certain items that we felt were essential for us to have at particular pricing.” They doubled their warehouse space to