The following is an advisory from the City and Borough of Juneau
Residents are advised to be aware of their surroundings and take precautions as heavy rainfall and wind may increase hazard risk in the Juneau area through late Monday night. Read the full National Weather Service (NWS) Flood Watch notice.
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Parks and Recreation teams closed the Auke Lake Trail on Saturday after two landslides were observed. For their safety, residents should to stay clear of the trail and out of the lake until weather conditions improve and staff can clear the debris.
The National Weather Service also issued a Flood Advisory for Montana Creek. Significant rainfall is increasing water levels around Montana Creek, with water observed in low-lying areas and the potential for flooding on Montana Creek Road and Back Loop Road at the Montana Creek Bridge. If you see water on the road, turn around. Do not drive on flooded roadways. From the National Weather Service Flood Watch for Juneau:
“While the current periods of heavy rainfall will diminish Saturday evening, another band of heavy rain will move through on Sunday. This will result in elevated streams and the potential for minor flooding. This will be followed by a strong system on Monday which will bring with it strong winds and more heavy rain. Rainfall totals of between 3-5 inches are expected during this time, with higher amounts possible in isolated areas and at elevation.”
CBJ will remain in close contact with the NWS and our response partners and provide updates as available. Residents can also stay tuned to weather.gov/Juneau for further developments.
Pennsylvania is due to receive US$2.2 billion dollars from the national opioid settlements, and a new database shows the public where that money is going.
Starting in 2021, a national, bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, including now-Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, reached settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors who had directly contributed to the opioid addiction crisis.
The opioid settlement payments, which began in 2022 and are slated to continue until 2038, are supposed to fund opioid overdose prevention, treatment, harm reduction, recovery support and other programs. This includes a broad array of interventions in Pennsylvania, from first-responder training for law enforcement to handle people who have overdosed to stigma reduction education and support for medication-assisted treatment, to name just a few.
In Pennsylvania’s case, 70% of the funding goes to counties. Cities and other organizations that were involved in the lawsuits, such as county district attorney offices, get 15%. The remaining 15% goes to the state.
This means that in Pennsylvania, it is mostly up to counties to determine how to best spend the US$2.2 billion. Counties must interact directly with their communities through requests for proposals to distribute funds. They will face critical decisions about how to invest the funds in ways that move beyond pilot programs to sustainable, system-level change.
States that have not given majority control of settlement spending to local governments have created a variety of ways to spend the money. These include a mix of state and local disbursement, as well as special fund-governing bodies charged with deciding how settlement funds are distributed. In some states, the state is the primary decision-maker about how settlement funds are used.
The requirement in Pennsylvania that opioid settlement funds are primarily sent to counties creates an opportunity for local innovation. It will also, eventually, allow experts to evaluate the effectiveness of this local control of funds compared with state control or other structures.
A screenshot from the Pennsylvania Opioid Settlement Data dashboard shows that Philadelphia has so far spent about $20 million of the $80 million it has received, with nearly $6 million going toward the city’s housing programs for people experiencing homelessness. Pennsylvania Opioid Settlement Data
2. Website improves transparency and accountability
When members of the public can see where the money is going, they can hold systems accountable for using the funds effectively. County leaders, meanwhile, can see what programs are currently being funded in other counties that they may want to replicate or scale up.
3. Spending is a marathon, not a sprint
Settlement dollars are just beginning to be distributed and spent. According to the tracker, over $80 million had been spent on approved opioid remediation programs as of Dec. 31, 2024. Settlement payments will continue over the next seven to 18 years, varying by company.
This is a marathon and not a sprint, so communities and decision-makers will have to balance spending that produces short- and longer-term objectives.
Additionally, not all counties are receiving the same amount of money, and that affects what they can do with it.
Kratom-derived products are increasingly available in smoke shops and gas stations. The products, which are largely unregulated, mimic opioids and can lead to addiction and cause withdrawal symptoms. Alejandra Villa Loarca/Newsday RM via Getty Images
4. New challenges will arise in opioid crisis
Emerging issues in the opioid crisis will continue to evolve, such as how contaminants like the animal tranquilizers xylazine and medetomidine, or products derived from kratom, a tropical tree, have entered the street drug supply in recent years.
Systematically tracking data will help expand our knowledge base of all programs in Pennsylvania that aim to address the opioid crisis. Some of these programs are based on strong existing evidence, while others will help to build new evidence, especially considering the ever-changing landscape of the crisis.
5. Funding gaps will remain
Opioid settlement funds are an important opportunity to address the opioid crisis, but will not on their own cover all funding gaps needed to address the crisis or the broader public health crises that are its major drivers. These include food and housing insecurity, unemployment, lack of access to mental health care, and so many other related issues.
As the country faces major and rapid federal disinvestment in states and communities, these funding gaps will grow and increase the pressure on local decision-makers to make the most of each dollar while demonstrating evidence of impact.
Jonathan Larsen receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust. He is the Chair of the Haverford Township Democratic Committee.
Amy Yeung receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust
Dennis Scanlon receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust.
Renee Cloutier receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust.
After taking control of the board earlier in the year, President Donald Trump announced on Aug. 13, 2025, the nominees of the annual Kennedy Center Honors.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
In a classic work on the modern presidency originally published in 1960, political scientist Richard Neustadt wrote that the American public “expects the man in the White House to do something about everything.”
These expectations, Neustadt argued, far exceeded the president’s ability to actually control outcomes.
More recently, political journalist John Dickerson, author of “The Hardest Job in the World,” noted that presidents typically have people demanding that they pay attention to about 250 problems at one time. But, quoting a productivity expert, Dickerson points out that priorities are like arms: “If you have more than two, you’re either crazy or lying.” The implication: Presidents have to shed 248 of those pressing concerns.
I study the American presidency. The research in the field, including my own, suggests that typically the politics of presidential attention is driven by two considerations.
The first comes down to delegation: As Barack Obama was fond of saying, no easy problem gets to the president’s desk. Presidents typically focus on the problems that no one else – not state or local governments, the bureaucracy or Cabinet secretaries – can deal with.
The other consideration is whether the issue is a winning one. Neustadt emphasizes this in his study of presidential power: Presidents enhance their reputations by winning conflicts, not losing them.
As a result, presidents are typically expected to be focused on national security, economic management and other key issues that have to be handled at the national level. They are expected to only sparingly wage battles of will with leaders outside government – in the arts, business or education – and with state-level politicians who lie outside the president’s direct control.
Amid the many other ways he’s departed from American political tradition, President Donald Trump has turned these assumptions upside down. That has important implications for how Americans understand the scope and reach of presidential power.
Like most aspects of American politics, the presidency has become more defined by partisan politics over time. Trump has taken this evolution to a new level, rejecting the traditional role of statesman or a spokesperson for the whole nation.
Instead, he has adopted the role of partisan political warrior – and that means he is using the power of his office in areas and in ways previously considered off-limits to the president.
President Barack Obama often said that no easy problem gets to the president’s desk. Tim Sloan/AFP-Getty Images
Traditionally, presidents have been especially hesitant to dive into areas where education intersected with difficult cultural conflicts. One of the most significant examples is the way that presidents reacted, from the 1950s through the 1970s, to Supreme Court orders mandating school desegregation.
As I note in my book “Backlash Presidents,” presidents are rarely eager to upend the racial status quo, even when they recognize its injustice.
Dwight Eisenhower, who was president when the Supreme Court issued the Brown decision, felt the decision placed new strain on the federal government to get involved in social relations and local issues. The feeling was bipartisan; Eisenhower’s presidential successor, Democrat John F. Kennedy, didn’t want to take a lead role in enforcing desegregation either.
Both, at different times, did eventually use federal force and power to uphold the law. Eisenhower mobilized the National Guard to protect Black students integrating a Little Rock, Arkansas, high school in 1957, and Kennedy in 1963 took similar action to protect Black students integrating schools in Alabama.
But federalism, which divides powers between national and state government, provided presidents with a strategically useful barrier to any further presidential action, allowing the two presidents to say that they were treading carefully because education was up to the states.
Obviously, this was a different time and context – the Department of Education didn’t exist yet, so there was not a clearly defined federal role in public education. But it represents an example of how presidents have typically looked to use structures such as federalism to leave tough issues to others and avoid political fallout.
It’s personal with Trump
Focusing attention on foreign policy and national security is less likely to stoke opposition. Those are areas where presidents have more latitude and can expand their power even more.
Presidents have traditionally not engaged in direct conflict with individual governors, industry leaders or university presidents if they can help it. They’ve engaged in policy battles, but generally not personal ones.
Is Trump’s attention on the personal a problem for the nation?
Presidents have been challenged for being too focused on minor issues and details, including Jimmy Carter, whose attention to things such as the schedule of the White House tennis courts drew scorn from critics.
Some presidents have been criticized as too quick to delegate to others, as was Ronald Reagan, who was seen as inattentive to important details. George W. Bush likewise was knocked for delegating too much, especially in crucial areas of foreign policy and intelligence.
Diving deeply into partisan politics
But Trump’s shifting of presidential priorities signals a much deeper political change.
Trump is hardly the first president to elevate a hot-button cultural issue for political gain – George W. Bush famously promoted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage leading into his 2004 reelection campaign.
But presidents have traditionally seen more costs than benefits associated with campus speech issues or race questions that could be handled elsewhere.
Another related aspect of the logic behind this shift in presidential attention is that the political constraints that limited past administrations, such as fear of alienating voters or stirring controversy, do not seem to concern this one. It suggests that the president and his team are not worried about the opinions of people who might disagree with their cultural stances.
This change also represents a departure from the more traditional statesmanship version of the presidency. The Trump administration and the president who heads it have chosen to dive deeply into, rather than rise above, politics.
Julia R. Azari has received (in the past) funding from the Truman Library Institute, the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
It’s been nearly two years since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent start of the Israel-Hamas war – and still, antisemitism shows no sign of abating as one of the thorniest issues at American colleges and universities.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, launched a task force to combat antisemitism at 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia. It has also withheld federal funding from a range of universities on the grounds of their alleged inaction over antisemitism.
These efforts have often been as controversial as the problem they’re trying to solve.
Since the Oct. 7 attack occurred, my team at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University has been trying to understand how antisemitism looks and is changing on campuses.
Our findings show antisemitic ideas are not necessarily widespread among university students or faculty in the U.S. But that doesn’t mean antisemitism is not a serious problem, since just a few students or faculty members with extreme views can shape an entire campus’s climate.
Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown University, testifies along with other heads of universities during a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Studying antisemitism on campus
We first surveyed about 2,000 Jewish college students in December 2023 at about 50 schools with large Jewish populations.
We surveyed those same Jewish students again in the spring of 2024, while also conducting in-depth interviews with students and Jewish campus professionals about their experiences with antisemitism on campus.
In the spring of 2025, we conducted a survey of over 2,000 faculty members at 146 research-intensive universities, often called R1.
Here are some of our most important findings.
1. Antisemitism isn’t just about harassment
Our December 2023 survey found that the majority of Jewish students said there was a hostile environment toward Jews on their campus. This hostility was much more prevalent at some schools than others.
Students reported personal experiences of antisemitic harassment – especially on social media. But they also said they feel shunned or excluded from campus life. Jewish students at schools with higher reported levels of hostility were also less likely to say that they fully “belong” on their campus.
In our 2024 interviews, Jewish students reported being told by peers that they could no longer be friends due to their – real or perceived – support for Israel. They also said that their non-Jewish peers were actively avoiding them.
As one Jewish student put it, “No one wants to have a conversation with Jews right now.”
Jewish students we interviewed also reported being shunned by friends who were critical of Israel, regardless of their own views on the actions of the Israeli government.
Multiple other studies have found that non-Jewish students reported they would not want to be friends with anyone who supports Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
2. Some Israel comments cross the line
Our research also shows that when it comes to debates about what is or is not antisemitic, Jewish students see a clear distinction between criticizing the actions of Israel’s government and denying Israel’s right to exist.
When we spoke to Jewish students in 2023 and 2024, we found the vast majority felt that denying Israel’s right to exist was antisemitic. But there was no similar consensus around other statements, such as accusing Israel of committing genocide.
3. Small groups drive antisemitism on campus
Our research also found that about 34% of non-Jewish undergraduates, and about 10% of non-Jewish faculty held views about Jews or Israel that most Jewish students find antisemitic.
About half the people in these groups expressed hostile views about Israel, such as denying that it has a right to exist and refusing to be friends with anyone who thinks differently.
The other half were less likely to express these extreme views on Israel but tended to agree with explicitly anti-Jewish statements such as “Jews in America have too much power.”
In contrast, two-thirds of non-Jewish students and about 90% of non-Jewish faculty did not hold views that Jewish students tend to see as antisemitic, even if they expressed deep criticism of Israel’s government.
In our interviews, many Jewish undergraduates said they wanted their campus administrators to do more to address antisemitism. But some said that heavy-handed actions such as banning pro-Palestinian groups sometimes made things worse by further inflaming campus tensions and prompting criticism that Jewish students were receiving special treatment.
This approach, in my opinion, has the potential to alienate potential allies on and off campus, including faculty and students who oppose antisemitism in all its forms but are being harmed all the same by federal actions. Penalizing people in the name of helping Jewish students could also reinforce antisemitic stereotypes about oppressive Jewish power.
I think that healing Jewish students’ feelings of isolation and ostracism requires building, or rebuilding, social connections across ideological and religious lines. If university administrators, or the federal government, really want to help Jewish students, they should focus on bringing students together rather than driving them apart.
Graham Wright works for the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University
Perhaps the most notable reaction to remarks seen as controversial about the Kirk killing hit ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel. His network suspended him indefinitely after comments that he made about the alleged shooter in Kirk’s death.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s statement about how Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks could hurt ABC affiliate stations.
Free speech? It depends
The First Amendment limits government officials from infringing one’s right to free speech and expression.
For example, the government cannot force someone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the American flag, because the First Amendment, as one Supreme Court justice wrote, “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”
However, the First Amendment does not apply to private employers. With the exception of the 13th Amendment, which generally prohibits slavery, the Constitution applies only to government and those acting on its behalf.
So, as a general rule, employers are free to discipline employees for their speech – even the employees’ speech outside of the workplace. In this way, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham correctly said on X, “Free speech doesn’t prevent you from being fired if you’re stupid and have poor judgment.”
This is why Amy Cooper’s employer, an investment firm, was free to terminate her following her 2020 verbal dispute in New York’s Central Park with a bird-watcher over her unleashed dog. She called the police, falsely claiming that the bird-watcher, a Black man, was threatening her life. The incident, captured on video, went viral and Cooper was fired, with her employer saying, “We do not condone racism of any kind.”
This is also why ABC was able to fire Roseanne Barr from the revival of her show, “Roseanne,” after she posted a tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a Black woman who had been a top aide to President Obama, that many viewed as racist.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said.
But the Supreme Court has been crystal clear. Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.
In a 2024 case, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, a unanimous Supreme Court plainly said that the government’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other coercion to suppress speech it doesn’t like violates the First Amendment. That principle is so profound and fundamental that it got support from every member of an often bitterly divided court.
A threat to revoke broadcast licenses would almost certainly be seen in a court of law as a government action tantamount to coercion. And Carr’s public comments undoubtedly connect that threat to Kimmel’s disfavored comments.
If the FCC had indeed moved to strip ABC affiliates of their licenses to broadcast because of what Kimmel said, ABC and its parent company, Disney, could have sued the FCC to block the license revocations on First Amendment grounds, citing the NRA v. Vullo case.
But the network seemingly caved to the coercive threat instead of fighting for Kimmel. This is why so many are decrying the Kimmel suspension as an attack on free speech and the First Amendment – even though they might not fully understand the law they’re citing.
Wayne Unger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Speaking to People in a new interview, Lil Tay recalled: “I woke up to my phone being blasted with calls and texts. My mom was being spammed. Everybody was worried. I was like, ‘What the hell’s going on?’”
She expressed: “It was really surreal and weird, and also there was a lot of people posting tributes to me, which is weird in itself.”
Lil Tay said that there was “malicious intent” behind the hoax, and assigned blame to her estranged father.
He denies the accusation.
Lil Tay is revealing that she underwent open-heart surgery
One year ago, in September of 2024, the singer and (now) OnlyFans star again vanished from the public eye. This time, she explains, it was not a hoax.
Lil Tay shared that she underwent open-heart surgery. Doctors apparently stopped her heart for 70 minutes during the procedure.
“I was getting irregular heartbeats, heart palpitations for a while,” she explained.
“But it really wasn’t that long of a time period that I knew about this.”
“And I definitely did not know that I was going to need heart surgery to remove a f–king tumor,” Lil Tay expressed.
Fortunately, she shared, she is doing much better now.
“I bounced back way quicker because I’m young, active, and healthy,” Lil Tay explained.
“But it was hard because I couldn’t dance for a long time. But I’m still standing, I’m here.”
In August 2025, just over a week after turning 18, Lil Tay claimed that she had made over $1 million in her first three hours as an OnlyFans creator. If true, it was a new record. (Image Credit: Twitter)
OnlyFans has changed her life
Just a month into her OnlyFans stardom, Lil Tay claims to have raked in millions. She has even used her purported wealth in her feud against Danielle “Bhad Bhabie” Bregoli.
Some have questioned whether or not the numbers that she’s reporting are accurate.
While we’re certainly not accusing the singer of anything, there have been instances of people announcing major subscription numbers to drive up interest. (It often works!)
We hope that Lil Tay continues to be a success. If you didn’t pick up on the subtext of the death hoax and who she’s blaming, there’s a lot of painful backstory. We wish her well.
At least, she was. She appears to no longer be taking the semaglutide.
The model and cookbook author was not necessarily on people’s radar for this divisive medication. A few body-shaming internet bullies, however, were ahead of the curve.
Teigen’s explaining why she took Ozempic, and even sharing how the weight loss helped her mental health during a time of trauma.
Author and model Chrissy Teigen attends the Womenâs Health Lab hosted by Hearst Magazines at The New York Historical on May 19, 2025. (Photo Credit: Noam Galai/Getty Images for Hearst Magazines)
Chrissy Teigen is admitting to having taken Ozempic shots
On the Thursday, September 18 episode of Chrissy Teigen’s Self-Conscious podcast, she opened up about using controversial semaglutide Ozempic.
She shared that she took what is normally a diabetes medication “for a year or so” after experiencing a stillbirth.
In September 2020, almost exactly 5 years ago, she and husband John Legend suffered this tragic loss.
“Not being hungry at all, for me, I f–king hate that,” Teigen then expressed. “I love being hungry.”
The cookbook author and social media influencer added:
“I love eating food. I love desiring food.”
Teigen shared that it took a while to find the “right dosage” and for her to “even get feelings of hunger.” That does not sound particularly healthy.
Chrissy Teigen attends the InStyle Imagemaker Awards at Private Residence on October 24, 2024. (Photo Credit: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images)
‘It’s not bad to be hungry’
“I would take the shot. It would be three days of forcing myself to eat food. [Then] it would wear off a bit. Day four, day five, more food. Day six, the shot again,” Chrissy Teigen detailed.
“I felt bad about it because it’s not bad to be hungry,” she correctly affirmed.
But she had been on “such a bad path in the way [she] thought about good food” and the shots helped her unlearn some “insane” diet “rules.”
Notably, Teigen did not opt to share when she stopped using Ozempic.
Shortly after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a speaking engagement at a Utah university, his widow, Erika Kirk, vowed to carry on his mission.
Now, the mother of two has taken a major step toward that goal by assuming leadership of Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization.
The move comes amid a growing battle over Kirk’s legacy and an increasingly tense debate over the proper way to discuss his controversial views.
Charlie Kirk (R) and and his wife Erika Lane Frantzve (L) on stage during the Turning Point USA Inaugural-Eve Ball at the Salamander Hotel on January 19, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Erika Kirk vows to carry on late husband’s legacy
“We will not surrender or kneel before evil,” Turning Point board members said in a statement Thursday (via CNN). “We will carry on.”
A former Miss Arizona and college basketball player with a degree in political science, Erika has worked as a podcast host and ministry leader in recent years.
She and Charlie met and got engaged in 2020. They married the following year and welcomed two children.
Erika memorably spoke out last week, just two days after her husband was killed.
CEO of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks on stage on the first day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“To everyone listening tonight across America, the movement my husband built will not die,” Kirk said on Sept. 12.
“My husband’s mission will not end, not even for a moment,” she added, before vowing to continue the American Comeback Tour of college campuses.
Erika’s views present a stark contrast to those presented moments ago by Rep. Alezanda Ocasion Cortez.
“His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Cortez said on the House floor today while opposing a resolution “honoring the life and legacy” of Charlie Kirk.
Ideological tensions escalate in wake of Kirk assassination
News of Erika’s appointment as CEO comes at the end of a tense week in the worlds of media and politics.
On Wednesday, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended by ABC after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly pressured the network and its affiliate owners to muzzle the comedian.
The move has been widely criticized, but thus far, ABC has not announced any intention to bring Kimmel back to the air.
Charlie Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA, speaks before Republican vice presidential nominee U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) gives remarks at a campaign rally at Arizona Christian University on July 31, 2024 in Glendale, Arizona. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
For some, the move is the most glaring example yet of the Trump administration capitalizing on the grief and outrage surrounding Kirk’s death in order to silence critics and amass power.
But supporters of the move maintain that Kimmel’s joke about Trump’s reaction to the shooting amounted to a pernicious lie, and the government acted in the people’s best interest in having the comic taken off the airwaves.
Whatever your stance, the past week confirmed that the cultural tensions of the past ten years will not be resolved anytime soon.
A new documentary about Kanye West is offering an unsettling look at the rapper’s battle with mental illness and the final days of his marriage to Kim Kardashian.
The film, titled In Whose Name?, opened in theaters across the country this week, and some viewers have left the theater shaken by Kanye’s extreme behavior.
One scene in particular has led many to the conclusion that relations between Kanye and his in-laws were much worse than we’d been led to believe.
Kanye West and Kris Jenner attend the Givenchy show as part of the Paris Fashion Week Womenswear Fall/Winter 2016/2017 on March 6, 2016 in Paris, France. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)
The film documents Kanye’s life from 2018 to 2024, a tumultuous period in which he became more outspoken in his political beliefs, and his troubled marriage came to an end.
Kanye launches verbal attack against Kris Jenner during shocking meltdown
The film’s climactic Kanye vs. Kris battle shows the rapper hurling virtiol at his then-mother-in-law and boasting of his refusal to take his medication.
“Y’all demasculated me and made me feel like a piece of s–t,” Kanye shouts in footage obtained by TMZ.
“And the only reason you got away with it is because I was medicated.”
From there, Kanye ranted about a recent visit to a psychiatric hospital.
Kris Jenner and Kayne West attend the Vogue 95th Anniversary Party on October 3, 2015 in Paris, France. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images for Vogue)
“No one from the family is taking any responsibility for my hospital visit, but if you wanna go online, that’s 50 percent of what people say. At least,” he yelled, adding, “Am I lying?”
When Kris replied that “it doesn’t matter,” West really began to scream.
“It does matter!” he shouted over and over again as Kris noted that she hadn’t been allowed to properly explain herself and, in fact, hadn’t “finished a sentence.”
“It matters to us and you. It doesn’t matter what the internet says. It matters what we think, Ye,” Kris eventually clarified.
Kanye West attends the 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards on February 02, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for The Recording Academy)
Kanye reveals dark side in self-produced doc
We’ve known for quite some time that Kanye has serious anger issues.
But the film — which, interestingly enough, was co-poduced by Kanye — reveals the full extent of his rage for the first time.
In a different scene, we see Kanye clash with Saturday Night Live star Michael Che backstage after one of his appearances on the show.
Che, it seems, was upset when West hijacked the show for one of his pro-Trump rants.
Kanye’s friend and fellow rapper Consequence was able to intervene before the situation got out of hand.
It’s unclear why Kanye would allow himself to be depicted in such an unflattering light.
In the week since Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a speaking engagement in Utah, people from all walks of life have paid tribute to the late pundit.
Of course, Kirk was a controversial figure in life, and as a result some of those who have spoken out since his death have found themselves on the receiving end of some very harsh criticism.
One such celebrity is beloved actress and Broadway icon Kristin Chenoweth.
Kristin Chenoweth attends the Los Angeles premiere of Universal Pictures “Wicked” at Dorothy Chandler Pavilion on November 09, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Amy Sussman/Getty Images)
Like Kirk, Chenoweth is a devout Christian, and she shared her sorrow at his passing on her social media pages.
“Didn’t always agree but appreciated some perspectives,” Chenoweth wrote. “What a heartbreak. His young family. I know where he is now. Heaven. But still.”
Kristin has a massive LGBTQ following, many of whom were appalled that she would align herself with an outspoken critic of gay marriage and trans rights.
On Thursday, Chenoweth discussed that response in an interview with NY1’s Frank DiLella.
The interviewer pointed out that Chenoweth has a “big LGBTQ+ fan base,” and he asked what she hoped to “convey” by posting about her “heartbreak” over Kirk, who “openly opposed same-sex marriage [and] trans rights.”
When DiLella noted that Kristin’s comments received “mixed reactions,” she replied, “Mixed? You’re being kind.”
Kristin immediately teared up and apologized that her “emotions [were] getting involved.”
“I saw what happened online with my own eyes and I had a human moment of reflection right then,” she said, referring to the widespread video of Kirk’s shooting.
“I came to understand that my comment hurt some folks and that hurt me so badly. I would never,” Chenoweth acknowledged, adding:
Charlie Kirk speaks at the opening of the Turning Point Action conference on July 15, 2023 in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“It’s no secret that I’m a Christian, that I’m a person of faith. It’s also no secret that I am an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community and for some, that doesn’t go together. But for me, it always has and it always will.”
“I can get angry about misogyny and racist rhetoric and ALSO very much agree that Charlie Kirk’s murder was absolutely disturbing and deplorable in every way imaginable,” Seyfried wrote on Instagram this week in response to the criticism she received.
“No one should have to experience this level of violence. This country is grieving too many senseless and violent deaths and shootings. Can we agree on that at least?”
The debate over Kirk’s views and rhetoric will no doubt rage on in the months to come.
Our thoughts go out to his loved ones during this enormously difficult time.
