Culture
‘Scaremongering’ or a cause for concern? Why the F1 engine debate is intensifying ahead of 2026
There has been growing excitement within Formula One over the potential return of the V10 engines. That roaring sound is part of the sport’s history and identity.
But the calls from senior figures in the F1 paddock, including the FIA president, Mohammed Ben Sulayem, to consider returning the loud engines used most recently 20 years ago, has also raised questions.
If simpler, louder and cheaper V10 engines, running on fully sustainable fuels and resulting in smaller and lighter car designs, are introduced in the coming years, what happens in the interim? And how would that impact the imminent power unit change scheduled for 2026?
F1’s stakeholders have been working on the 2026 engine rules, maintaining the V6 hybrid basis for the power units, for years. Since their approval in the summer of 2022, the ruleset has encouraged Audi, Ford (via Red Bull), and General Motors to join the grid, as well as reversing Honda’s decision to quit, all thanks to the sport’s commitment to fully sustainable fuels and greater electrification. In the case of Audi and Red Bull, the development of their new engine programs has required significant investment and recruitment, running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
These rules were meant to cover a five-year cycle from 2026 through to the end of 2030. But will they even happen at all?
In a select media roundtable, including The Athletic, on Sunday in Shanghai, Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s single-seater director who helps shape F1’s future rules, framed the discussion over the future engine regulations as hinging on two questions.
The first relates to the long-term direction of the sport and whether, in the next three or four years, F1 wants a different type of power unit. “If the answer to that is yes, (that) we want to change something, then question number two is, ‘What we do in the intervening period?’” Tombazis said. That period begins next year.
“What I want to say at the start about 2026 is that, either way, whether we stay with the current regulations or whether we do the already approved new regulations, I think Formula One would be in a good place,” Tombazis said. “I don’t want it to be seen as sort of, ‘OK, we are panicking about 2026,’ because that is far from reality.”
On Friday in China, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner claimed there were “limitations” with next year’s rules that could impact the sport’s on-track spectacle due to the “shortcomings of the split in electrification and combustion” sources with the new power unit, which leans more on the electric power in the power unit. Those “limitations” would relate to consistent performance issues across the grid, which could affect the quality of competition and racing.
But Tombazis said he and the wider FIA did not share what he called a “scaremongering” view raised about the 2026 regulations’ potential impact on racing.
“I think there will be cars racing closely with each other, able to fight each other, and using driver skill, etc,” Tombazis said. “So fundamentally, I think I don’t share the panic stories. I remind people that there were panic stories for the ’22 regulations about how the cars would be massively slow.” This was when F1 last made a major overhaul to the aerodynamic regulations, which was not on the scale of 2026 when both the car designs and power units will change.
“I’m not saying everything was perfect,” Tombazis said of the 2022 change. “There are things with the benefit of hindsight we would have done differently. But I don’t think it was that disaster.”
Any change to the plans for next year would depend on the position of all the engine manufacturers. The investment and effort already put in has led the sport to a point where it’s “10 past midnight, and Cinderella has left the building,” to quote Horner.
Although Tombazis agreed that “the train has left the station to a large extent” for 2026, he noted that talk about the ‘interim’ period was fueled by chatter in the wake of Ben Sulayem, the FIA president, calling for an evaluation of a future switch to V10s.
Tombazis added that the FIA did not wish to impose any changes that would make it impossible for a team to compete. “We won’t just go on majorities,” he said. “We are trying to build a consensus here, and if that fails, then we will stay where we are (with the existing 2026 plan).”
If F1 power unit manufacturers were to feel it’s better to shelve the ’26 engines due to potential negative impacts on the sport — if the “scaremongering” were serious and concerns were widely shared — then mechanisms do exist that could lead to the status quo with the current specification of power units being the interim solution until a possible return to V10s.
But that would lead to other major knock-on effects and issues, given that Audi and Red Bull Powertrains/Ford haven’t produced a V6 hybrid engine for the current regulations. Other existing manufacturers have shifted all development to future engines. This, again, makes the idea of changing next year’s engine plans seem unthinkable.
Horner told reporters on Sunday in China he would be “very surprised” if the existing rules continued next year. “I think all teams are all in at the moment on ’26,” Horner said. “So we’d have to understand what it was all about.” He also denied Red Bull was pushing for a delay of the new rules, saying it was “geared up and ready for ’26.”
Toto Wolff, the Mercedes team principal, didn’t give much thought to the possibility of the 2026 changes not going ahead.
“It’s all going to be good,” he told reporters, calling the change an “exciting adventure” for the F1 grid that meant it should be celebrated, not derided by already looking at what follows the upcoming change.
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff (Fadel Senna/AFP via Getty Images)
“This is where we should put our emphasis,” Wolff said. “This is what we should cheer for, and speak about, all the goodness that is going to bring rather than looking too far forward.”
A spokesperson for Audi issued a statement noting that the upcoming rule change and power unit design was “a key factor in Audi’s decision to enter Formula One. These power unit regulations reflect the same technological advancements that drive innovation in Audi’s road cars.” The German manufacturer has established its own F1 engine program and bought the Sauber team all on the basis of these rules — which now could only last a few years.
Assuming things go ahead as planned for 2026, as most still anticipate, the winds are currently blowing toward a shorter cycle from the original five years to change the power unit formula.
The desire for a long-term game plan is shared by senior figures throughout the paddock, meaning it’ll be a talking point in the coming months. The positions of the various power unit manufacturers could be influenced by their relative competitive standings in the political battles next year. If one team has produced the best power unit and has an advantage that would be hard to overcome, it’s only natural it might seek to protect that and kick any shift in regulations as far down the road as possible — and that its rivals would try to fight back.
Given how celebrated the 2026 engine rules were when they were announced in 2022 and the credit given to them when each new major manufacturer joined the grid, ditching them early would be strange. But Tombazis felt two primary factors had caused the change in stance. First, he cited the perception from manufacturers about electrification uptake across the automotive industry given a slow down in consumer interest.
“Back in 2020, 2021, when these discussions were had, the trend was pretty decisively in the direction of electrification,” he said. “I’m not saying that’s not happening, but certainly the views of the participants have changed since then.”
He also highlighted the costs of making the power units, admitting the current designs are “way too expensive.” When the 2026 rules were announced, improved cost control was heralded as one of their benefits, but Tombazis said their expense was a consideration.
“Even if Formula One is in very good health financially, it has become important also to protect it against world economy fluctuations, and I think we need to take these protective measures while the sun is shining and not when it starts raining, ideally,” he said. “The drive to cut costs is important to consider.
“All of these things are not things we would dream of doing without trying to respect all of the participants properly.”
Wolff said Mercedes was “always open” to different engine solutions, but that F1 had to consider what fans wanted too, and whether their views might have changed amid the shift toward a younger and more diverse fanbase than in the past. For those who came to the sport through “Drive to Survive,” the sound of V6 hybrids is all they will have known.
“All of this needs to be set as questions,” Wolff said. “What are the objectives for a future regulation change in a few years? Let’s analyze that based on data and come to a conclusion that is for the best of our sport.
“Because this is the single most important denominator between the FIA, Formula One, the teams, that we want to have the greatest product for our fans.”
(Top photo: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images)
Culture
In Her New Memoir, Siri Hustvedt Captures Life With, And Without, Paul Auster
Siri Hustvedt was halfway through a new novel, about a writer tasked with completing his father’s unfinished manuscript, when her husband, the novelist Paul Auster, died from lung cancer.
Continuing that story in his absence felt impossible. They were together for 43 years, the length of her career. She’d never published a book without his reading a draft of it first.
Two weeks later, in the Brooklyn townhouse they shared, she sat down and wrote the first two sentences of a new book: “I am alive. My husband, Paul Auster, is dead.”
“It was the only thing I could write about,” she said.
She wrote about her feelings of dislocation: how she vividly smelled cigar smoke, even though Auster had quit smoking nine years before; how she woke up disoriented on his side of the bed and got into the bath with her socks still on; how she felt a kind of “cognitive splintering” that bordered on derangement. She had lost not only her husband, but also the person she had been with him. She felt faded and washed-out, like an overexposed photograph.
Those reflections grew into “Ghost Stories,” Hustvedt’s memoir about her life with and without Auster. Partly a book about grief and its psychological and physiological side effects, it’s also a revealing and intimate glimpse into a literary marriage — the buoyant moments of their early courtship, their deep involvement in each other’s work, their inside jokes (“I’ll have the lamb for two for one”).
She also writes publicly for the first time about the tragedies the family endured several years ago, when Auster’s son, Daniel, who struggled with addiction, took heroin while his infant daughter Ruby was in his care, and woke up to find she wasn’t breathing. He was later charged with criminally negligent homicide, after an examination found that her death was caused by acute intoxication from opioids. Soon after he was released on bail, Daniel, 44, died of a drug overdose.
A few months later, Auster started to come down with fevers, and doctors later discovered he had cancer. He reacted to the news as perhaps only a novelist would — lamenting that dying from cancer would be such an obvious, unsatisfying ending to a life marked by so much tragedy.
“He said so many times, it would make for a bad story,” Hustvedt said. “It was so predetermined, almost, and he hated predictable stories.”
Tall and lanky with short blond hair, Hustvedt, who is 71, met me on an April afternoon at the elegant, art and book-filled townhouse in Park Slope where the couple lived for 30 years. She took me to the sunlit second floor library, where Auster spent his final days, surrounded by his family and books. “He loved this room,” Hustvedt said.
“I’ll show you his now quiet typewriter,” she said, leading me down to Auster’s office on the ground floor, which felt as tranquil and carefully preserved as a shrine. A desk held a small travel typewriter, an Olivetti, and next to it, his larger Olympia. “Click clack, it really made noise,” Hustvedt said.
Auster rose to fame in the 1980s thanks to postmodern novels like “City of Glass” and “Moon Palace,” which explore the mysteries and unreliability of memory and perception. Hustvedt gained renown for heady and cerebral literary novels that include “The Blazing World,” “What I Loved” and “The Summer Without Men.”
They were each other’s first readers, sharpest editors and biggest fans. They even shared characters — Auster borrowed Iris Vegan, the heroine of Hustvedt’s 1992 novel “The Blindfold,” and extended her story in his novel “Leviathan,” published the same year. (Critics and readers assumed she had used his character, not the other way around.)
“We were very different writers and always were, and that was part of the pleasure in the other’s work,” Hustvedt said.
Friends of the couple who have read “Ghost Stories” said they were moved by Hustvedt’s loving but not hagiographic portrait of her husband.
Salman Rushdie, who visited Auster just a few days before he died, said Hustvedt’s vivid portrayal of Auster — who was witty, warm and expansive, always ready with a joke — captured a side of him that was rarely reflected in his public image as a celebrated literary figure.
“He’s very present on the page,” Rushdie said. “They were so tightly knit, and Paul was Siri’s greatest champion. They were deeply engaged in each other’s work.”
Hustvedt was 26, a budding writer who had just published a poem in the Paris Review, when she met Auster, 34, after a reading at the 92nd Street Y. He was wearing a black leather jacket, smoking, and she was instantly smitten.
They went downtown to a party, then to a bar in Tribeca, and talked all night. He was married to the writer Lydia Davis, but they had separated. He showed her a photo of his and Davis’s 3-year-old son, Daniel. They kissed as she was about to get into a taxi, and he went home with her to her apartment on 109th Street.
Shortly after they began seeing each other, Auster broke it off and told her that he had to return to his wife and son. She won him back with ardent, unabashed love letters that she quotes in “Ghost Stories”: “I love you. I’m not leaving yet, not until I am banished.”
In 1982, a few days after Auster’s divorce, they got married. They were so broke that guests had to pay for their own dinners.
Their writing careers evolved in parallel, but Auster’s fame eclipsed Hustvedt’s. She often found herself belittled by interviewers who asked her what it was like to be married to a literary genius, and whether her husband wrote her books.
“People used to ask me what my favorite book of Paul’s was; no one would ever ask him that,” Hustvedt recalled.
When Hustvedt complained about the disparity, Auster joked that the next time a journalist asked what it was like to be married to him, she should brag about his skills as a lover.
The slights persisted even after Hustvedt had established herself as a formidable literary talent. “One imagines that will go away, but it didn’t,” she said. She’s sometimes felt reduced to “Paul Auster’s wife” even after his death: At a recent reading, a fan of his work asked if she took comfort in reading his books in his absence, as if the real loss was the death of the literary eminence, not the man she loved.
She felt the weight of his reputation acutely when Auster died, and news of his death spread online just moments after he stopped breathing, before the family had time to tell people close to him.
The shadow Auster’s fame cast over the family became especially pronounced when scandal and tragedy struck.
In “Ghost Stories,” Hustvedt details a side of Auster’s personal life that he closely guarded: his relationship with Daniel, whose drug use and shiftiness was a constant source of worry. As a teenager, he stole more than $13,000 from her bank account, her German royalties. In 2000, Auster and Hustvedt learned that Daniel had forged his transcripts from SUNY Purchase after he had promised to re-enroll; he hadn’t, and kept the tuition money.
After each breach of trust, she and Auster forgave him.
“I have to leave the door open, just a crack,” Paul said about Daniel, Hustvedt recalls in “Ghost Stories.”
She writes about rushing to the hospital in Park Slope, where Daniel’s daughter was pronounced dead: “It’s the image of her small, perfect dead body in the hospital on Nov. 1, 2021, that forces itself on me.”
The shock of Ruby’s death, followed by Daniel’s arrest and overdose, was made even more unbearable by the media frenzy. Auster and Hustvedt were hounded by reporters, and made no comment.
“We were not in a position to speak about it when it happened, it was all so shocking and overwhelming and trying to deal with your feelings was more than enough,” Hustvedt told me.
But she felt she had to write about Daniel and Ruby in “Ghost Stories” because their lives and deaths were a crucial part of the family’s story, yet had been reduced to lurid tabloid fodder, she said.
“It would not have been possible to write this book and pretend that these horrible things didn’t happen,” she said. “I also didn’t want the horrible things to overwhelm the book, and that’s a tricky thing, because it’s so horrible, you feel it has to be there, but it isn’t the whole story.”
Before he died, Auster told Hustvedt he wanted that story to be told.
“I didn’t feel that I was betraying him,” she said.
Auster and Hustvedt’s daughter, Sophie Auster, a musician who lives in Brooklyn, said reading her mother’s memoir was painful, but she also felt her father’s voice and presence in its pages.
“Opening the book was extremely difficult for me, but you just sink in,” she said. “She doesn’t let you sit in the sorrow for too long. There’s a lot of life and a lot of joy.”
Hustvedt found it strange to write “Ghost Stories” without sharing drafts with Auster, her habit throughout her career. But often, his voice popped into her head.
“I kind of heard him in my ear, saying things like, ‘That’s a wavy sentence, straighten that thing out,’” she said.
After finishing the memoir, Hustvedt went back to the novel she’d been working on when Auster died. She realized she had to rewrite the first half entirely.
Culture
In ‘Rocky Horror,’ Luke Evans Finds His Ballad of Sexual Liberation
There’s a Hollywood action star, standing in silhouette at the top of a creepy manor’s staircase, dressed in a corset and jockstrap, thighs fitted into fishnets and hair secured under a wig that could have been scalped from Charli XCX.
“I’m just a sweet transvestite,” the action star, Luke Evans, croons, suggestively caressing his nipples. “From Transsexual, Transylvania.”
Evans, 47, has taken on the role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter in “The Rocky Horror Show” on Broadway, which opened last month at Studio 54. He has lost almost 20 pounds since performances began at the end of March, he said, and he relies on a small can of oxygen to power through a production in which he barely leaves the stage. Every night, he grabs his blond dachshund, Lala, who waits in his dressing room, and returns to a rented apartment in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, covered in glitter. At one point, after Evans discovered glitter in her poop, Lala took a brief intermission from the theater.
“It’s mental,” Evans said of the demands of a Broadway show. He has been giving eight high-octane performances a week as a mad scientist who sees himself as a prophet of sexual liberation. It is a role made famous by Tim Curry in the 1975 film version. (Curry also performed in the original production in London in 1973, and the show’s subsequent runs in Los Angeles and New York.) About a week into joining the Broadway production of “Moulin Rouge! The Musical,” the rapper Megan Thee Stallion was hospitalized in March for exhaustion.
But the physical strain of running across the stage in patent leather boots with five-inch heels has garnered him a Tony nomination for best performance by a lead actor in a musical. It may also do wonders for how the world sees Evans. For the past two decades, Hollywood has frequently cast him as an action hero. “I was somebody who could drive a bus, or build a wall, or kill a dragon,” he said.
Well, it was a little more glamorous than that: He has starred in billion-dollar global blockbusters including the “Fast & Furious” franchise and “The Hobbit.” But it is no less confining for an actor who thinks he might have something more to offer audiences than pistol whips and fisticuffs.
A Belated Start
“My career started at a breakneck speed,” Evans told me one morning on the patio of his Chelsea hotel as Lala gently snored in his lap. “For about eight years, I felt like I didn’t breathe.”
The marathon began in 2010 when Evans began the transition from a career on the London stage to one in Hollywood as a dependable Adonis. He played the sun god Apollo in a campy 2010 remake of “Clash of the Titans,” and within the next four years, he earned a promotion in the Greek pantheon (playing Zeus in “The Immortals”), drove expensive cars (playing the villainous Owen Shaw in the “Fast & Furious” series), learned archery (playing Bard the Bowman in “The Hobbit” movie trilogy), and became a vampire (playing the title character in “Dracula Untold”). His career seemed to be hitting a peak in 2017 when he received positive reviews as the meathead Gaston in the live-action remake of Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.”
These days, Evans is looking ahead to the next 10 years. He has released music, built a clothing brand with his boyfriend, Fran Tomas, and developed properties across Europe, including in the places where he splits his time, Lisbon and Ibiza. He talks often about refusing to dwell on the past, but the past certainly informs his decisions.
Becoming famous in his early 30s left him feeling that he had limited time to make his mark in Hollywood. “This business is all about objectivity,” Evans said. But even as his star ascended, he was looking over his shoulder at the younger stars of the “Twilight” films.
“They were porcelain and perfect. They glowed,” the actor said. “I would never have been cast. Maybe as some haggard, old half-wolf.”
Even a decade later, nobody would describe Evans as haggard. The director of the “Rocky Horror” revival, Sam Pinkleton, prefers to think of him as a “shape-shifter.”
“He contains multitudes,” Pinkleton said. “One of those is a giant dude who can kick your ass, and the next minute he is kitty-cat purr.”
“I remember Luke talking a lot about how he wanted to transform with this role,” the director added, saying that Evans was considered for the part early in the casting process. “He realized that he could do things with this role that he was never allowed to do.”
Evans now has a chance to redefine himself in portraying Frank-N-Furter. And knowing more about his back story is likely to enrich the performance that audiences see onstage.
In his 2024 memoir, “Boy From the Valleys: My Unexpected Journey,” Evans describes being born in Wales on Easter Sunday and being raised a Jehovah’s Witness. His father was a bricklayer and his mother a homemaker; the family lived in a working-class neighborhood. Because of the strictures of the family’s religion, Evans was frequently bullied as a youngster and often felt excluded from typical childhood pleasures: Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas or birthdays, so there was no singing carols or going to birthday parties for Evans. He described himself as having been exceedingly thin at the time, and struggling with his sexuality.
“Looking back, I didn’t stand a chance,” he wrote.
But in his memoir, Evans is reluctant to blame others for his own hardships. One of the rare exceptions is discussing a neighbor, whom he blames for the death of one of his childhood cats, Tigger. It appeared to have been shot with a lead pellet. “Anyway, I own his house now,” Evans wrote. “And any animal can come and go as they please.” (Evans told me he bought it as a rental property to provide extra income for his parents.)
At 16, Evans left home and started dating an older man. He eventually moved to London with a boyfriend who encouraged him to pursue a career in theater and he went on to build a successful résumé in the West End through the 2000s, starring in productions like “Taboo,” “Avenue Q” and “Rent.” His parents gradually accepted his sexuality, though that came at the cost of being shunned by their community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“It took a long time, a lot of conversations and a lot of patience from both sides for us to understand we were on different journeys,” Evans said. “It was not easy because the religion wanted my parents to cut me off, to have nothing to do with me.”
He does not believe in God anymore. “It was something I believe was created by man, and, over centuries, it became a way to control the masses.” But about five years ago, he did get a tattoo on his left thigh. You can see just a glimmer of it through his fishnets in “Rocky Horror.” It’s a quote from Corinthians: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” For Evans, it’s the story of how, in his family, love won over everything else.
‘Absolute Pleasure’
Questions about his sexuality came up during the height of his movie career. “I wasn’t hiding, even then,” Evans told me, acknowledging that he may have lost roles because he refused to hide. “I had to do it,” he explained. “I had to walk so that the future generations of gay actors could run.”
“I play straight more than I play gay,” he said. “Why the hell not? I’m acting. I can do anything.”
Evans prefers to think of himself as someone who drives toward the future without dwelling much on the past. It’s a trait that he recognizes in Frank-N-Furter, who hurtles dangerously toward a utopian vision of “absolute pleasure.”
“The past is important, of course, but you can’t read too much into the past,” Evans told me.
“People keep trying,” I said.
“But the present and the future is something you can have a say in, if you so choose,” the actor said.
“Is that a survivor’s mentality?” I asked.
“Possibly,” Evans laughed. “When I was younger and I had to leave home, I had to stop thinking about my past, because my past didn’t want to have anything to do with me. In fact, my past sort of stopped when I left home and left the religion. I lost everyone, all my friends.”
A similar psychology runs through the actor’s performance as Frank-N-Furter, a drag queen’s answer to Victor Frankenstein — if the good doctor had a penchant for sleeping with his monsters.
“There is joy but also danger in Frank,” Evans explained, “because he is a speeding train.”
If the Jehovah’s Witnesses demanded a life of invisibility, and Hollywood demanded a life of rigid masculinity, then Broadway was offering Evans a path to total exposure. It was as Frank-N-Furter says: “Don’t dream it. Be it.”
By the time Evans reaches the show’s hedonistic peak, the parallels between the actor and the character become impossible to ignore. There is a joy in seeing Evans — once a boy who could not celebrate his own birthday — now presiding over the birth of Rocky, the musical’s golden Adonis. He embodies the doctor’s lustful jinx as a man making up for lost time, delivering a version of the character whose occasional glimmers of warmth are singed with rage and regret — two emotions that Evans has spent decades trying to evade in his own life.
“There is a menace to him,” Evans observed of his character, “that sits just under the surface of glamour and charisma. But there is also something very naughty, powerful and subversive.”
Culture
Book Review: ‘From Life Itself,’ by Suzy Hansen
Admittedly, Americans seem to have a soft spot for books about faraway places that end up reminding them of themselves. Hansen’s, though, is in many ways too rich and complex to provide an easy parallel. Erdogan often gets lumped in with other 21st-century strongmen, but on migration, for example, he has taken an idiosyncratic tack. “Unlike Trump and Orban,” Hansen writes, referring to Hungary’s then prime minister, “Erdogan had seen the Syrians as part of his vision for a greater Muslim Turkey, rather than brown invaders of a white Western country.” His approach to immigration also allowed him to play a kind of power broker on the world stage, collecting European Union money to keep the Syrians out of Europe.
Much of what Hansen found in Karagumruk surprised her, too. Residents would complain relentlessly about their new Syrian neighbors while providing them with generous aid. She spoke with countless Karagumruk residents while necessarily directing our attention to a few. Ismail, the longtime muhtar, or neighborhood councilman, speaks lovingly of the city’s old cosmopolitanism and happens to be part of the same midcentury generation as Erdogan. Ebru, a real estate agent, resents the Syrians for getting European Union money and tries to unseat Ismail. Huseyin, a shop owner, defends his Syrian neighbors from a violent mob. Murat, an “Islamic fundamentalist barber,” pledges his fealty to Erdogan, whom he calls “the most democratic person in the world.”
Erdogan, for his part, emerges from this account as a ruthless autocrat who rose to power through undeniable popular support. He was a poor boy turned soccer player turned mayor of Istanbul. In his first several years as Turkey’s prime minister, he improved the health care system and civil infrastructure, bringing measurable benefits to people’s lives. But then came the corruption and oppression, and the gutting of state institutions, where loyalty was now favored over expertise.
In February 2023, when massive earthquakes tore through Turkey, killing more than 50,000 people, the cost of such depredations was laid bare: “Erdogan had so centralized power around his person until he rendered Turkey a country that no longer worked.”
Still, he won the election that was held later that year, with 52 percent of the vote. Hansen sees some hope at the edges: principled people who navigate their way around obstacles, finding the seams in the armor, “whatever pathways within institutions hadn’t yet been obstructed, whatever avenues of freedom remained open to them.” But improvisation doesn’t add up to an effective opposition.
-
Dallas, TX5 minutes agoDallas Weather: Thunderstorms in the forecast for Friday & Mother’s Day
-
Boston, MA17 minutes agoWhere to watch Tampa Bay Rays vs Boston Red Sox: TV channel, start time, streaming for May 8
-
Denver, CO23 minutes ago11 Denver Restaurants For Anyone Missing Their Southern Roots – Tasting Table
-
Seattle, WA29 minutes agoOffseason Checklist: Seattle Kraken
-
San Diego, CA35 minutes agoSan Diego Padres celebrate Puerto Rican heritage with local artist
-
Milwaukee, WI41 minutes ago
Food trucks in Milwaukee brace for new curfew
-
Atlanta, GA47 minutes agoMissing Atlanta teen Benjamin Braithwaite found safe after more than a week, police say
-
Minneapolis, MN53 minutes agoMinneapolis fire crews battle apartment blaze near Saint Anthony Park