GoneTrending

To announce her forthcoming album, Kacey Musgraves stripped down to her birthday suit in nature. Now, she’s using the connection to the earth as inspiration for her latest creative venture. As a body of work, Deeper Well is described as Musgraves’ return to her roots. Now, thanks to her collaboration with Boy Smells, fans can experience that through their latest signature candle.

The scent, named after Musgraves’ upcoming body of worth, contains top notes of saffron, eucalyptus, and raspberry and middle notes of beetroot, lavender, clary sage, and mushroom. The overlapping base note pulls in the singer’s goal of earthy elements, including amber, oakmoss, patchouli, iso-e super, and agarwood.

In a statement, Musgraves spoke about her mission when crafting the candle. “It’s airy but grounded,” she said. “Sky and dirt. Foreign but home. The divine feminine. The peaceful masculine. An examination of what you make room for. What fills your soul? A hug from someone you’ve missed. It’s the growing roots in your garden, a symbol of your ruthless reaching for something better. ‘Deeper Well’ is being brave enough to leave the shallow in search of wiser waters.”

Kacey Musgraves’ ‘Deeper Well’ candle retails for $56 and is currently available for purchase on the singer’s website as well as Boy Smells. Find more information here.

Deeper Well is out 3/15 via Interscope/MCA Nashville. Find more information here.

Inequality has gotten worse than you think.

An investigation by former “Daily Show” correspondent Hasan Minhaj is still perfectly apt and shows that the problem isn’t just your classic case of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

---

As much as we hear about wealth inequality these days, one disparity remains mostly ignored: the gap between the wealthy and the ridiculously wealthy.

Minhaj spoke to Richard Reeves, an economist with the Brookings Institute, who painted a dark picture:

The study Reeves refers to points to the growing wealth of the top 10th of the top 1%:

“The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012 — a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined.”

And no one’s paid any attention.

Between the cries of the 45.3 million people in poverty and a dwindling middle class in every state, the voice of the average millionaire is all but drowned out.

But not all millionaires are worried about growing inequality in the top 1%.

In his search for a concerned millionaire, Minhaj met Morris Pearl, a retired investment banking director and member of an organization called The Patriotic Millionaires. Minhaj was baffled by what Pearl had to say:

What about trickle-down economics?

Trickle-down theory was popularized under Ronald Reagan’s presidency. The idea was that clearing a path for the rich to make more money would spur more private investment, which would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all workers.

Reagan put trickle-down theory into practice in two basic ways: by lowering taxes for the wealthy and by freezing wages for the poor.

In 1981, he cut the top marginal income tax rate — which only applies to the highest-income households — from 70% to 50%. Then in 1986, he more than doubled-down by slashing the rate to 28%. (The current rate is 39.6%.) And under Reagan’s leadership, the minimum wage was frozen, even as costs of living were rising.

Pearl and other so-called Patriotic Millionaires think top one-percenters like themselves should pay more taxes.

Not only that, they believe raising the minimum wage is critical to reducing inequality.

OK, maybe not everyone — including millionaires — are convinced that giving more money to the rich will fix the economy. So why do our policies do just the opposite?

This article originally appeared on 3.23.15

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn’t have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn’t something we’d choose—and we’d hope others wouldn’t choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.

---

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here’s why.

There’s far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells” should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that’s my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.”

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I’m not okay with that.

One reason I don’t support banning abortion is because I’ve seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

I’ve heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I’ve heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I’ve heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman’s medical decisions, and I don’t think the government should either.

Most people’s anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don’t believe that anyone’s religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!” when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

I also don’t want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I’d never have to make, but wouldn’t want banned. I don’t understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being’s creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother’s body. And while I don’t think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn’t something the government should be in the business of doing.

As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God’s hands.

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn’t the way to go.

The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn’t stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that’s where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can’t co-exist in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that’s where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.

This article originally appeared on 01.22.19

For fantasy fans, it truly is the best of times, and the worst of times. On the bright side—there’s more magic wielding, dragon riding, caped crusading content than ever before. Yay to that.

On the other hand, have you noticed that with all these shows, something feels … off?

No, that’s not just adulthood stripping you of childlike wonder. There is a subtle, yet undeniable decline in how these shows are being made, and your eyes are picking up on it. Nolan Yost, a freelance wigmaker living in New York City, explains the shift in his now viral Facebook post.

The post, which has been shared nearly 3,500 times, attributes shows being “mid,” (aka mediocre, or my favorite—meh) mostly to the new streaming-based studio system, which quite literally prioritizes quantity over quality, pumping out new content as fast as possible to snag a huge fan base.

The result? A “Shein era of mass media,” Yost says, adding that “the toll it takes on costuming and hair/makeup has made almost every new release from Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have a B-movie visual quality.”

He even had some pictures to prove it.

---

Yost first addressed the Amazon Prime Series “The Rings of Power.” One of the many, many things that makes Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy so iconic is the costumes. But that legacy was the direct result of dedication to detail.

“The production spent years hand-making every single piece of armor with real metal, hand-dyeing all-natural fiber fabrics, and designing distinct embroidery and hairstyles specific to each race in Middle Earth that had continuity through the story,” Yost wrote.

He added, “the natural dyes and dedicated layers of fabrics for elves, for hobbits, wool/dyes, and for men had a much more muted/medieval look, yet ethereal because of the slight detail you don’t really notice, but the depth draws your eye to every inch of the costume regardless.” This, he says, is why those three movies stand the test of time.

Compare this to the two images from “The Rings of Power,” below. In one photo “they barely scrapped together an unnaturally gilded scale mail breastplate and just screen printed a stretched long sleeve shirt to match underneath, all over a skirt in a single layer of a warped poly skirt.”

The other image shows “they just saved money on an Elven wig altogether for a 2022 pompadour, with a velvet pleated priest smock (with crushed parts not even steamed out), and a neckline that isn’t tailored to fit like we’ve seen previously with Elrond or Celeborn.”

Yost then moved onto HBO’s “House of the Dragon.” Arguably even those who have never seen a single episode of its predecessor, “Game of Thrones,” would still recognize Daenerys Targaryen for her platinum white hair—an attribute that Yost notes was quite expensive.

He explained that for the show’s final season alone, Daenerys’ wigs most likely cost tens of thousands, requiring human hair to be custom made into multiple wigs.

Luckily, there was only one character with that signature look in the show. For “House of the Dragon,” however, with a cast almost entirely made up of silver-haired brooding powerhouses, Yost surmises that due to budget constraints, the creators opted for synthetic wigs.

You can see below the problem this cost-cutting decision makes in terms of authenticity.

“Synthetic hair reflects light throughout the whole hair shaft and it tangles extremely easily,” Yost writes. “With any shot where a character isn’t actively moving or is performing dialogue and the hair isn’t being actively smoothed down every couple of seconds between shots, each flyaway is going to show up on camera if there’s any indirect lighting and look messy. Not only that, synthetic hair is also twice as thick per strand than human hair, so regardless of that the wigs are going to look bulky in an uncanny valley sort of way.”

This affects not just sci-fi and fantasy, but other genres meant to transport viewers into other worlds, like period pieces, which Yost points out with a picture from “Bridgerton” by Shonda Rhimes.

“It’s obviously not meant to be historically accurate, which is totally fine,” he writes, but without important details or embellishments or even proper undergarments to make the clothes fit well, everything looks like a slightly more expensive Halloween costume.

Yost’s insightful post really shines a light on what audiences are having to trade off for the sake of constant output. The phrase “done is better than perfect” takes on a new meaning altogether as studios race to meet a deadline with whatever is easiest to mass produce. But if viewers are so easily taken out of these stories because of noticeable corner cutting, then perhaps it’s a sign that what we really want and need are stories worth waiting for, ones that truly pull us in and leave us captivated. This is no easy ask, for studio execs or customers alike (I too am a voracious binge-watcher), but as we can see in these examples, the most valuable experiences rarely, if ever, come from rushing.

This article originally appeared on 9.10.22

No Doubt is set to make their long-awaited reunion at Coachella 2024. The highly-anticipated set has frontwoman Gwen Stefani combing through the band’s discography. The reunion has brought up old feelings. During her appearance on the Audacy Check-In podcast, Stefani confessed that there’s one song that gives her a particularly violent reaction.

“I can’t listen to a lot of [No Doubt] songs because they speak so clearly to me,” Stefani confessed. “You know, you have regrets, you have mistakes you’ve made, and most of the songs are about that. If I do ‘Ex-Girlfriend,’ even when I say it, I almost throw up in my mouth because it’s like, just know exactly where I was at in that moment to write that song. What I know now, it’s just like, ‘Oh my God,’ it just brings you right back.”

Stefani went on to say that what helps her stomach through performing the track live is the fans’ emotional connection to the song. “There are lots of times when you’d be on tour doing the repetitive songs,” she said. “But it’s not the songs. You’re not in the songs. You’re there with these new people every night, and they’re receiving the songs. So that’s where you get the energy, and you relive that moment with them.”

Watch the full episode above.

The wait for a new season of All American has been a bit of a long one, mostly due to the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes from 2023. The strikes put a halt on production and script for All American season six, as well as All American: Homecoming season three. However, the strikes have been over for a few months now and production is back in full swing. With that, it was only a matter of time until new details about All American season six and thankfully, they are here. So, with just a little over a month until season six returns, here is everything that you need to know about the upcoming season of All American.

Release Date

All American season six will premiere on The CW on April 1, 2024 at 8 pm EST/7 pm CST. The news was shared through a trailer the platform released on February 15, ending the long wait by fans for an official date for the new season. Season five of All American concluded after 20 episodes on May 15, 2023.

Cast

Outside the absence of Billy Baker (played by Taye Diggs) and questions around the characters Coach Montes (played by Kamar de los Reyes, who passed away at the end of 2023) and Patience Robinson (played by Chelsea Tavares), the cast should remain the same for All American season six. Here’s the list of names to expect in the main cast for the new season:

• Daniel Ezra as Spencer James
• Bre-Z as Tamia “Coop” Cooper
• Greta Onieogou as Layla Keating
• Samantha Logan as Olivia Baker
• Michael Evans Behling as Jordan Baker
• Cody Christian as Asher Adams
• Karimah Westbrook as Grace James
• Miya Horcher as Jaymee
• Chelsea Tavares as Patience Robinson

The cast of recurring characters for All American season six includes:

• Monét Mazur as Laura Fine-Baker
• Jalyn Hall as Dillon James
• Hunter Clowdus as JJ Parker
• Mitchell Edwards as Cam Watkins
• Simeon Daise as Jabari Long
• Morris Chestnut as Rick Barnes

Plot

Though we have an official release date and trailer for All American season six, The CW did not share the official synopsis for the new season. Despite this, there are plenty of storylines that will be continued in season six. First, we will presumably pick up on the aftermath of Patience’s stabbing, an incident that occurred in the Baker house in retaliation from her longtime stalker Miko.

The trailer for season six also revealed that the show will pick up after the summer, bringing Olivia back home from her trip to London. This means Spencer and Olivia can pick up where they left off in their romance, but as expected, there will be some complications as neither character is the same person they were before the summer began. Spencer and Jordan will also clash heads as they look to lead their Golden Angeles University football squad through a successful season.

Asher and Jaymee have their baby boy and that will lead to complications in their lives as they adjust to being parents. Jordan and Olivia are also tasked with picking up the pieces after their father Billy Baker’s death and ensuring that the family legacy lives on through them.

Trailer

In addition to the All American season six premiere date announced, The CW released a trailer for the new season. You can view that below.

All American Season 6 Schedule

All American season six is expected to have thirteen episodes in total, and this is the tentative release schedule for the episodes:

• April 1: Episode 1
• April 8: Episode 2
• April 15: Episode 3
• April 22: Episode 4
• April 29: Episode 5
• May 6: Episode 6
• May 13: Episode 7
• May 20: Episode 8
• May 27: Episode 9
• June 3: Episode 10
• June 10: Episode 11
• June 17: Episode 12
• June 24: Episode 13

How To Watch All American Season 6

New episodes in All American season six will initially air on The CW channel Mondays at 8 pm EST/7 pm CST starting on April 1, 2024. The following day each week, starting at 3 am EST/2 pm CST, the week’s new episode will be available to stream on The CW website and app.

‘All American’ season six debuts on The CW on April 1, 2024. Seasons 1-5 are available now to stream on Netflix.

Flaco was born in captivity, one of the owls found in the Central Park Zoo. But when his enclosure was vandalized in February of 2023, he escaped. There were attempts to get him back, but he evaded capture, becoming one of New York City’s most beloved non-human citizens, much like the park’s Mandarin Duck. Sadly, after a year of freedom, Flaco died, leading to much mourning.

Per The New York Times, the Wildlife Conservation Society released a statement saying the Eurasian eagle-owl appeared to have collided with a building on the Upper West Side, on West 89th Street. Zoo employees took his body to the Bronx Zoo, where a necropsy will be performed. Next month he would have turned 14 months.

Flaco escaped from the zoo on February 2 of last year after vandals shredded the mesh on his enclosure. The Wildlife Conservation Society was not pleased with his escape.

“The vandal who damaged Flaco’s exhibit jeopardized the safety of the bird and is ultimately responsible for his death,” the society said in its statement. “We are still hopeful that the N.Y.P.D., which is investigating the vandalism, will ultimately make an arrest.”

No one was ever arrested, nor was Flaco ever captured. There were fears that he couldn’t survive on his own. But survive he did, and he began attracting attention of the city’s citizenry, becoming a fixture of social media.

Still, Flaco’s life was always at risk, as NYT explained. Millions of birds across America fly into windows after failing to perceive them as glass. There’s risk of contracting rodenticide, of snatching up a poisoned rat that’s become sluggish and therefore and easy target. When Barry, another celebrity Central Park Zoo owl, died in 2021, she was found to have high levels of rat poison in her system.

Whether the collision killed Flaco or whether other factors were involved will be known after the necropsy is performed.

Being a beloved New Yorker, Flaco was mourned after his passing. “Rest In Peace, my upper Manhattan neighbor, Flaco,” wrote comedian Frank Coniff. “I hope somewhere in the afterlife, Millie and Barney are having a staring contest with you.”

“I I love you flaco. You will always be a free bird,” wrote writer Noah Hurowitz.

“Flaco, you gave so much joy to many of us,” wrote Vee Nabong. “I’m glad you experienced life outside an enclosure during the one short year that you were free. We will miss you terribly, your hoots , stretches, cute Flaco expressions and many fly outs in the evenings.”

“I’m so sad about Flaco,” wrote author Francesca Serritella. This charming owl was inspiring with his courage and adaptability, a poignant figure of wildness and wonder in this city that wants for both. And I loved when his little ear tufts caught the wind.”

(Via NYT)

Following Cassie’s shocking legal filing against Diddy in November 2023, in which he was accused of sexual misconduct, the music industry underwent a reckoning. Several high-profile music executives, including Jimmy Iovine, were accused of similar allegations, including the co-founder of Interscope Records in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County. Nearly three months later, there has been an update on the case.

According to Rolling Stone, on February 15, the plaintiff’s attorney, Doug Wigdor, filed a discontinuance with prejudice to close the case for good. In a statement shared with the publisher, Wigdor expressed his client’s (referred to as Jane Doe) decision to drop the suit, opting instead for an out-of-court resolution.

“The matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the parties,” he said. No further information has been provided outlining the terms of the parties’ agreement.

In the initial filing, Doe alleged that in August 2007 Iovine “sexually abused, forcibly touched, and subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation.” As part of the case, he faced assault and battery claims in addition to violations of the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Iovine nor his legal representative have issued a statement regarding the case.

Unless the Utah Jazz or the Houston Rockets make a push over the final 25 or so games of the regular season, we can clearly state which teams are going to make the playoffs out of the Western Conference. The order they make it, however, is nowhere near as clear, as the West is affectionately a jumbled mess full of teams that are constantly one winning or losing streak away from a major change to their fortunes.

Four teams are within 2.5 games of the 1-seed. Another four teams are separated by 1.5 games on either side of the Play-In line. At the very bottom of the conference are teams that have LeBron James and Steph Curry on them (although not on the same team, despite Golden State’s best efforts at the trade deadline).

Anthony Edwards and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

We’ll put these two together because they’re the two biggest stars on the two teams at the top of the Western Conference, and they are entering this stretch with the same goal in mind: finishing in first. Edwards and Gilgeous-Alexander are both magnificent players who have combined to win a grand total of zero playoff series in their careers. That’s totally fine — they’re young, they’ve gotten tastes of playoff basketball, and success is going to come sooner rather than later for both of them.

Edwards has a chance at throwing his name into the MVP discussion with a big second half of the year, while Gilgeous-Alexander has a real shot at just flat-out winning the award. They’ve been great so far for teams that are in the hunt for a championship, and now, it’ll be on them to try and find that extra gear over the final 27 games. The 1-seed and homecourt in the Western Conference are on the line, and there’s a chance a spot in the NBA Finals comes down to a Game 7 between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Oklahoma City Thunder. I’m sure either team would love to make sure that game happens in front of their fans. The bad news? They’ve already played four times this year, so there are no more Wolves-Thunder games on the schedule.

James Harden

No one is better at getting what they want than Harden. When he was done in Houston, he wanted a move to Brooklyn, which he got. Same with moving to Philly when he was done in Brooklyn, and same with the Clippers when he was done with the Sixers. And now, he wants a championship and a contract extension, but you don’t need me to remind you what he tends to do when the lights get really bright, as no player in the league has been defined more by their postseason failures than Harden.

The good news is he’s been excellent in Los Angeles after a rough start — the team has the second-best record in the league since getting past the initial, five-game losing streak that happened when he first got to town. The Clipper offense desperately needs his ability to run the show and get guys the ball in spots they like, and when he’s out there with Kawhi Leonard and Paul George, Los Angeles is just pummeling teams (they’ve been very, very good when it’s Harden and only one of those two, as well). It’s worked out well so far, and keeping this up down the stretch would give L.A. a real shot of getting the 1-seed.

The Pelicans’ Big 3

At some point, the trio of C.J. McCollum, Brandon Ingram, and Zion Williamson are going to have to show they are a viable trio long-term. The team is 34-22 and find themselves 5.5 games back of the 1-seed, three games back of the 4-seed and homecourt in the first round, and five games up on the 10-seed. They’re a small losing streak away from falling down into eighth place (they’re 1.5 games up on Sacramento). In these moments, you want to lean on your stars, but the problem New Orleans faces: Things haven’t gone very well when their three stars are on the floor together.

All three are very good players, but per Cleaning the Glass, lineups with all of them on the floor together are being outscored by 2.6 points per 100 possessions. The team’s most used lineup — McCollum, Ingram, Herb Jones, Williamson, Jonas Valanciunas — is being outscored by 2.8 points per 100 possessions. The ones with only two of the three on the floor tend to be excellent, and it might behoove Willie Green to lean into those as much as possible. It would help if that trio could stop anyone on defense, as the lineups with all three of them on the floor are allowing 118 points per 100 possessions, which is impressive, considering the team’s defensive rating of 113.4 is seventh in the league. There is a really dangerous basketball team in here, and figuring out how to put their stars into positions to succeed is priority No. 1 down the stretch.

Bradley Beal

Sometimes it’s as simple as being healthy. When Beal plays, the Suns are 19-11. When he does not, they’re 14-12. The idea behind putting Beal with Kevin Durant and Devin Booker continues to make sense in theory, and when they’re on the floor together, Phoenix is a juggernaut — lineups with all three of them alongside one another are outscoring opponents by 12 points per 100 possessions (although it’s worth mentioning that the lineups with Beal and only one of the All-Stars have struggled, particularly the ones without Booker, as those lineups are getting outscored by 8.7 points per 100 possessions). And for all the concerns about whether they can stay healthy, Durant (played in 49 of 56 games) and Booker (46 of 56) have generally held up their end of the bargain.

But of course, it’s not like this team was assembled without any indication that these are guys who occasionally miss some time. This was the risk Phoenix always was going to take when it decided to go all-in on three superstars with checkered injury histories, and if the team is going to make noise once the playoffs roll around, getting Beal healthy and consistently going is crucial. That’s especially true if they want to avoid the play-in — Phoenix is currently in seventh, and the team is just as close to 10th place as it is third (four games each way). Their biggest problem? Tankathon gives them the toughest remaining schedule in the league with two games left against all of these teams: Boston, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Cleveland, the Clippers, and Denver. Are those the teams with the six best records in the league? You bet!

Jonathan Kuminga, Brandin Podziemski, and Klay Thompson

Steve Kerr opted to make a bold change in the team’s final game before the All-Star break, as he put Klay Thompson on the bench and leaned into a starting lineup of Steph Curry, Brandin Podziemski, Andrew Wiggins, Jonathan Kuminga, and Draymond Green. Well, it was bold on the surface, but when you look at the numbers, that lineup has been destroying opposing teams all year: It’s outscoring opponents by just over 27 points per 100 possessions, according to Cleaning the Glass.

Amid Thompson’s up and down year, the emergence of Kuminga and Podziemski has the Warriors looking like the Warriors when they’re out there with that trio of veterans. Kuminga appears to have gotten past his gripes about playing time as he’s become nearly indispensable, while Podziemski just has that Warriors thing about him where he seems like he always knows how to make the right play. Thompson, meanwhile, is still a good player; he’s just struggled to reach the highs he reached earlier in his career. That’s fine, and perhaps coming off the bench and getting to feast against second units is exactly what he needs to get on track, especially once Chris Paul comes back and can get him looks in spots where he wants the ball. And while the Warriors are 28-26 and have a bit of a hill to climb in the West — they’re the 10-seed right now and sit four games back of both the 6-seed and the 7-seed — they might actually be able to scale it.

The least hot ticket in America this weekend is CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which seems to increase in craziness every year. How crazy is it now? So crazy that its far right speakers are saying the quietest parts extra loud. Things kicked off in appropriately scary gear right off the bat, with Trump stooge and Pizzagate loon Jack Posobiec telling the crowd that their goal is to bring an stop to the biggest part of the nearly 250-year-old American experiment.

“Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely,” Posobiec told the crowd, to scattered applause. He then chillingly added, “We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this, right here.” (What is “this”?

Not everyone applauded, but one person who did was Steve Bannon, who laughed and crowed, “Amen.”

Posobiec’s vow to end democracy comes mere weeks after Donald Trump, the prospective GOP nominee, straight-up said he’d be a “dictator,” which he vowed to only be for one day — as though dictators ever grow tired of wielding absolute power. That didn’t stop him from soaring in the polls, but perhaps people should take seriously the things said by a party that ended legal abortion nationwide. Then again, you know, Joe Biden is kind of old and sometimes says strange things.

You can watch CNN cover Posobiec’s startling words in the video above.