We Crashed star Anne Hathaway and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever‘s Michaela Coel have been tapped to lead the cast of the upcoming movie Mother Mary, according to Deadline. The film, directed by The Green Knight filmmaker David Lowery, is about the relationship between a fictional pop star and a fashion designer, played by Hathaway and Coel, respectively. Jack Antonoff and Charli XCX will write and produce original songs for the film, with an original score composed by Daniel Hart…
Variety reports The Theory of Everything‘s Eddie Redmayne will executive produce and star in The Day of the Jackal, Peacock and Sky’s upcoming reimagining of Frederick Forsyth’s novel and Universal’s film of the same name. Redmayne will play the titular character, who is hired by the OAS, a French dissident organization, to kill then-president of France Charles de Gaulle…
Rashida Jones is the latest addition to the growing cast of In the Blink of An Eye, the upcoming feature from Finding Nemo and WALL-E director Andrew Stanton, according to The Hollywood Reporter. She joins Saturday Night Live alum Kate McKinnon in the film that “follows three storylines, spanning thousands of years,“ that “intersect and reflect on hope, connection and the circle of life.” Jones’ character, per THR, is an anthropology professor who is taking care of her dying mother…
Tekashi 6ix9ine was reportedly rushed to the hospital Tuesday night after being attacked at a gym.
The 26-year-old rapper was in the sauna of a LA Fitness when he was “savagely beaten by a group of men,” TMZ reports. He was without security when he was suddenly attacked.
Upon hearing the commotion, gym staff alerted a manager. Police and EMS were then called and Tekashi was taken by ambulance to the hospital. He reportedly suffered injuries to his jaw, ribs, and back.
The controversial MC’s attorney, Lance Lazzaro, told the outlet he plans to contact the appropriate authorities to get Tekashi the protection he needs. The attack comes after the rapper was granted early release from federal prison for cooperating with authorities to help put several other gang members behind bars.
(HONG KONG) — Chinese President Xi Jinping departed Moscow on Wednesday after two days of highly symbolic meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which the two presented a united front and an alternative vision for global leadership.
Much of the summit seemed to be directed at countering narratives from the United States, NATO and other nations that have stood against Putin’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine more than a year ago.
Despite statements saying that “China-Russia relations are not the kind of military-political alliance during the Cold War,” China and Russia made clear they wanted to “advance the trend toward a multi-polar world.”
“This highly publicized summit may reflect a shift towards a new and more active role for China, as it seizes the opportunity to convey diplomatic — and possibly tangible — support for Russia and any other state that wishes to defy the West,” Michael Butler, associate professor of political science at Clark University, told ABC News.
Joint animosity towards the U.S.-led world order has kept Russia and China close despite Putin’s war in Ukraine and western sanctions against Russia has made China their biggest customer and economic lifeline.
Russia became energy-hungry China’s top oil supplier in January and February, supplanting Saudi Arabia. China’s nationalist tabloid Global Times hailed energy a “ballast stone” in the two nations’ trade relationship.
During their meetings, Putin committed to deliver at least 98 billion cubic meters of liquified gas annually to China by 2030 which is six times higher than what they sold China last year but still below what Russia used to deliver to Europe.
Ahead of the summit, White House Spokesperson John Kirby dismissed the warming China-Russia ties as “marriage of convenience,” but said it stands in stark contrast to Beijing’s increasingly frosty relationship with Washington.
Beijing increasingly sees Russia as a necessary ally as China and United States continue to fallout over numerous fronts not limited to Taiwan and access to semiconductors. It was further exasperated by the spy balloon episode earlier this year.
While Xi and China may not have voiced strong support for the war in Ukraine, having the West’s resources focused on the conflict may represent a net positive for Beijing, said Zev Faintuch, a senior intelligence analyst at Global Guardian, an international security firm.
“China also wants to keep Putin in power, as its current lopsided relationship is very beneficial, and weaken Russia’s military to reduce the threat it poses to China,” Faintuch told ABC News. “After all, they are nuclear-armed neighbors who have fought before.”
Beijing had initially hoped that the spiraling tensions with the U.S. would abate in the wake of Xi’s meeting with President Joe Biden in Bali last November, but as they continued to crater, Xi seems to have re-prioritized his Russian relationship. He even made a rare direct slight at the United States earlier this month, blaming the Americans for “containment and suppression” as the reasons for China’s economic challenges.
Xi highlighted on numerous occasions over the two days of meetings that Russia and China are each other’s largest neighbors and that their partnership is “consistent with historical logic and a strategic choice of China.”
Through the Chinese State Media readouts of the meetings, Xi outlined an all-weather friendship that “will not be changed by any turn of events,” “no matter how the international landscape may change,” but stopped short of mentioning the “no limits friendship, with no forbidden areas” the two leaders touted last year just weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In return for Xi’s support since Putin invaded Ukraine, Xi was able to get Putin to reaffirm “Taiwan as an inalienable part of Chinese territory” and support for policies in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Putin also fawned over China’s Saudi-Iran deal calling it “historic,” fully demonstrating “China’s important status and positive influence as a major country in the world.”
Xi arrived armed with his “12-point peace proposal” but questions remain how sincere China is about a resolution in Ukraine.
Ahead of the Moscow meetings, China had sought to position itself as a potential peacemaker, toeing the line in its support for Russia, said Arik Burakovsky, assistant director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
“Xi has not imposed any conditions on Putin and largely shares his outlook on the conflict,” Burakovsky said on Wednesday.
Chinese State Media were already working overtime to paint China, while not “a party in the crisis,” as the responsible actor for proposing a peace plan. The United States, meanwhile, has been portrayed as an irresponsible instigator of conflict.
Just ahead of Xi’s arrival in Moscow Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in his near daily refrain, “It is the United States, not China, that is providing weapons to the Ukrainian battlefield.”
“China has always upheld an objective and fair position on the Ukraine issue. All that China has done is to promote talks for peace,” he said.
Much of what was discussed in Moscow didn’t appear to “suggest a major change in China’s actual position relative to Russia or the war,” said Butler, the professor at Clark University.
He added, “What it does reflect is China’s penchant for challenging the U.S. and flouting the international norms the U.S. ostensibly supports.”
(NEW YORK) — North Korea launched “multiple” missiles on Wednesday, South Korean military officials said.
The missiles amounted to a fourth round of test launches in 10 days, coming as the United States and South Korea near the close on Thursday of 11 days of training exercises in the region.
The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff sent a short statement acknowledging “the military detected several cruise missiles fired from South Hamkyung Province at 1015 towards the East Sea.”
The North fired a short-range ballistic missile into the East Sea during what it claimed to be tactical “nuclear counterattack” drills on the weekend.
(WASHINGTON) — Policymakers and investors will closely watch a decision from the Federal Reserve on Wednesday about whether to raise interest rates as the U.S. economy weathers two pressing challenges: a banking crisis and persistent inflation.
The precarious moment poses a dilemma for the Fed because its strongest tool, the benchmark interest rate, is a key cause of the financial emergency but the primary solution for high prices.
The central bank has aggressively raised interest rates over the past year, bringing inflation down significantly from a summer peak, though it remains more than triple the Fed’s target of 2%.
The rapid rise in interest rates, however, tanked the value of bonds held by Silicon Valley Bank, precipitating its failure and cascading damage for the financial sector.
Nearly 190 banks are at risk of collapse amid high interest rates and declining asset values, according to a study released by a team of university researchers earlier this month.
A continuation of rate hikes risks further intensifying the banking crisis, putting additional financial institutions at risk of collapse. However, a pause on rate increases could undermine the Federal Reserve’s fight against inflation, allowing high prices to persist and eat away at household budgets, economists previously told ABC News.
A survey by Bloomberg last week found that most economists expect the Fed to raise interest rates by 0.25% on Wednesday, matching the increase that the central bank imposed at its most recent meeting last month.
In recent days, some forecasters have predicted the Fed will forego an interest rate hike as it monitors the continuing fallout from the Silicon Valley Bank failure.
Goldman Sachs, for instance, told investors on Monday that it expects the Fed “to pause at its March meeting this week because of stress in the banking system.”
Over the last year, the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate by 4.5%, the fastest pace since the 1980s.
The Fed has put forward a string of borrowing cost increases as it tries to slash price hikes by slowing the economy and choking off demand. The approach, however, risks tipping the U.S. economy into a recession and putting millions out of work.
Persistent rate hikes also threaten the stability of the banking system.
Still, the Fed could avoid facing a choice between slowing price increases and preserving financial stability, since tighter lending practices taken up by private sector banks in response to the financial distress may cool the economy on its own accord, allowing the Fed to forego raising rates while still bringing down inflation.
“No matter what the Fed does later this month, financial conditions are tightening,” Julia Pollak, chief economist at Zip Recruiter, said last week.
(WASHINGTON) — Patients and medical providers who rely on pharmaceutical medications to treat everything from asthma to ADHD to cancer may have had a harder time finding those medications last year than in years past, a new Senate report released Wednesday finds.
The report, issued by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters, finds many drug shortages were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2021 and 2022, the report says, drug shortages increased by nearly 30%, creating challenges for health care providers and ailing patients, and, Peters says, possibly exposing the country to national security threats.
At the end of 2022, a five-year record was set with 295 active drug shortages. But while the COVID-19 pandemic may have heightened drug-access challenges, the report says the problem is not new: 15 essential drugs have been in short supply for over a decade.
One expert testifying to lawmakers Wednesday, Erin Fox, a pharmacist and professor at the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, has been tracking drug shortages since 2001.
Her team has found an abundance of drugs in short supply, most notably generic injectable drugs used at hospitals, such as anesthetics, some steroids and older chemotherapy agents. While the Senate report highlights a variety of shortages, it points specifically to shortages of Vincristine, a critical adult and pediatric chemotherapy drug used to treat various types of cancer with no alternative treatment, and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), an immunotherapy biologic drug used to treat bladder cancer.
“Because of shortages, patients and hospitals routinely cannot access the most basic and essential prescription medications,” Fox plans to tell the Senate Homeland Committee.
She told ABC News she plans to describe the challenges of providing medical care in an environment where shortages are commonplace, citing studies that show adverse patient outcomes when providers are faced with shortages.
“Shortages adversely impact patients, health care professionals, and health systems. An entire generation of clinicians has never practiced during a time without shortages,” Fox will tell the committee.
Peters, the committee chairman, began examining drug shortages in 2019, before COVID-19 increased scrutiny of the problem. Since his 2019 report, shortages have increased, in part due to U.S. reliance on foreign providers for some active pharmaceutical ingredients necessary to give medications their desired effect. That reliance became a critical weakness for the United States during the pandemic when some foreign countries placed limits on exports of pharmaceuticals.
“Our continued over-reliance on foreign suppliers for the key materials needed to make critical drugs, primarily those in China, remains an unacceptable national security risk,” the Illinois Democrat will argue.
The new report finds that nearly 80% of manufacturing facilities that produce active pharmaceutical ingredients — the key ingredients that give a drug its intended effect — are located outside of the U.S., with the number of China-based manufacturers registered with the Food and Drug Administration more than doubling from 2010 to 2015.
Outsourcing production to India and China means the U.S. is vulnerable to global catastrophes and at the whim of market forces. If the U.S. faces another pandemic or global crisis, it could experience even more serious supply chain issues with key pharmaceuticals.
The report also identifies what it says are blind spots in the ability of the FDA and other U.S. regulators to monitor or address shortages.
Under current law, manufacturers aren’t required to report increased demand or export restrictions for drug products to the FDA, making it challenging for the regulating agency to anticipate shortages coming down the pike. In the report, the Senate Homeland Committee recommends Congress implement changes to these rules.
The FDA also doesn’t have a list of life-supporting and life-sustaining drugs, leaving it unable to assess the number of drugs that have a limited number of manufacturers or that rely on only one supplier for production.
“The federal government’s inability to comprehensively assess U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain vulnerabilities and address known causes of shortages for critical drugs continues to frustrate efforts to predict drug shortages and effectively mitigate their impact on patient care,” the report finds.
It’s not yet clear what, if any, action Congress can take to try to shore up supply chains for key pharmaceuticals.
The committee report recommends new federal investment in domestic manufacturing of key drug products that are regularly in short supply. Congress took similar action in a separate sphere last year after determining that reliance on foreign-produced microchips used to power cars, computers and other technology posed a national security risk, by passing the CHIPs and Science Act which provided billions to incentivize onshore production of computer chips.
It’s not clear if a similar effort geared toward pharmaceuticals could gain traction in Congress.
(WASHINGTON) — It’s a brand battle in the Supreme Court this week as whiskey maker Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. takes on a dog toy manufacturer in a case over free speech and federal trademark law.
The case, first filed by Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., against VIP Products LLC in Arizona several years ago and slated for a Wednesday hearing before the high court, claims trademark infringement over an injection-molded vinyl chew toy the whiskey manufacturer says infringes on its trademark.
VIP’s “Silly Squeakers” dog toys are made to resemble real-life products, mostly involving sodas, beers, wines and liquors. The toy bottle in question reads “BAD SPANIELS” instead of “JACK DANIEL’S,” “The Old No. 2” instead of “Old No. 7 Brand,” and “On your Tennessee CARPET” instead of “Tennessee sour mash WHISKEY.”
The district court found VIP’s use of the Jack Daniel’s trademark was likely to confuse consumers. However, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of VIP in 2020. The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining when “humorous use” of a brand’s logo and identity in a commercial product by a third party violates federal trademark law or deserves protection under the First Amendment.
Jack Daniel’s brief claims the products mislead customers for profit.
“VIP sells products mimicking Jack Daniel’s iconic marks and trade dress that mislead consumers, profit from Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill, and associate Jack Daniel’s whiskey with excrement,” reads the brief.
The dog toy company invokes its First Amendment rights in its brief to the Supreme Court.
“Freedom of speech begins with freedom to mock,” reads the first sentence of VIP’s brief.
The brief of respondent argues the product is not a trademark infringement because “Bad Spaniels” is not an actual product — the dog toy, which has artwork on it, is the product.
“This case is not a dispute between two trademarks on commercial products,” reads the brief. “VIP uses a pretend trademark and pretend trade on a pretend label on a pretend bottle full of pretend contents.”
Rogers v. Grimaldi
The Ninth Circuit decision, upholding VIP’s ability to sell the whiskey-themed dog toy, relied on a longstanding ruling from a different federal appeals court in the 1989 case Rogers v. Grimaldi.
When actress Ginger Rogers sued Alberto Grimaldi and MGM films over Ginger and Fred — a film about two cabaret performers whose routine resembled that of Rogers and Fred Astaire — the Second Circuit Court of Appeals developed a test, known as the Rogers test, for balancing First Amendment free speech rights with trademark protections under the Lanham Act. The court ruled in favor of Grimaldi, saying the film was not likely to deceive or cause confusion in replicating a trademarked routine.
In the Jack Daniel’s case, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the Jack Daniel’s bottle design is protected under trademark law but concluded the humorous approach of VIP was protected by the First Amendment.
“Although VIP used Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design to sell Bad Spaniels, they were also used to convey a humorous message, which was protected by the First Amendment,” reads the opinion.
Other stakeholders
A slate of major commercial brands have weighed in on the Supreme Court case through amicus briefs, or friend-of-the-court filings that allow other stakeholders to inform the justices of broader implications of a case.
Nike, Inc., Campbell Soup Company, Levi Strauss & Co. and American Apparel & Footwear Association all filed briefs in favor of Jack Daniel’s argument. If the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, it “opens the door to a new global counterfeit threat: an influx of infringing products meriting First Amendment protection because their creators clear a ground-level hurdle of affixing minimal ‘humorous’ expression onto them,” according to American Apparel’s amicus brief.
In the 1986 case Grey v. Campbell Soup Company, Campbell’s, which owned the trademark GODIVA, won an injunction against a pet treat maker branded as Dogiva, with packaging that infringed on the trademark for Godiva’s chocolates. Campbell’s brief claims it would have lost the case under the standard set forth by the Ninth Circuit in 2020.
“If the case were litigated today, Grey would undoubtedly argue that DOGIVA was intended to be a humorous commentary on the GODIVA® brand and thus was an expressive work, and Ninth Circuit precedent would require the district court to impose a heightened burden on Campbell Soup to show that the Rogers test was satisfied,” reads the Campbell brief.
The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States also filed an amicus brief in favor of Jack Daniel’s. A release sent to ABC News earlier this week says this case is about ensuring responsible advertising.
“This case is no laughing matter,” Courtney Armour, chief legal officer for Distilled Spirits Council, said. “While the case involves dog toys, even allegedly ‘humorous’ knock-offs can confuse consumers as to what messaging and products well-known alcohol beverage brands endorse.”
The Biden administration also supports a ruling in favor of Jack Daniel’s, according to a brief from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.
Among those weighing in on behalf of VIP are at least 30 trademark law professors, whose brief argues the company’s “speech” is “noncommercial.”
The Motion Picture Association — comprised of some of the largest film distributors in the country — filed a brief that backed neither party, instead offering context for why filmmakers are invested in the case.
“A work might [refer to trademarks] to create a realistic or fanciful setting, to cast the mark in a creative new light, or to comment on it directly,” the filing says.
The court is expected to deliver a decision in the case by the end of June.
Yara Shahidi has always struck a balance between work and play, but landing her role as Zoey Johnson on black-ish interrupted her equilibrium and invited a world of unprecedented opinions that she had to learn to get used to.
“When black-ish started, that was a lot of attention at a young age,” she tells Byrdie. “The good thing about that is people felt like they were our family because they watched us weekly. The bad thing is sometimes certain boundaries do not exist with people in person.”
Yara says she once felt “like I couldn’t mess up,” given her status as a household name.
“I’m such a square that I really couldn’t get in trouble if I tried, but I had this weird feeling [that] if I’m out in the world and mess up, that’s it,” she says, noting, “As Brown and Black women, there’s an added layer of the stakes of your mistakes.”
“This is especially true if you’re the only one in a space,” she continues. “However, we shouldn’t have to forego the experience of being able to say, ‘If I mess up, I’ll still be worthy of this moment, space, and opportunity.’”
Yara credits her college experience for helping her “learn how to carve out a distinct space for my private life, which allowed me to enjoy my public life.” She’s now growing, evolving and honoring her needs and desires in what she calls her “selfish season.”
“Even though I’ve worked for the 23 years I’ve been alive, by no means have I experienced all of life,” Yara says. “I’m at an exciting phase where I’m coming to terms with just how much more life there is to live.”
Black Stone Cherry has premiered a new live video for the band’s latest single, “Out of Pocket.”
The clip, which is streaming now on YouTube, captures footage from the Kentucky rockers’ recent tour of the U.K.
“Reliving our amazing time in the UK!” BSC says. “Can’t wait to see y’all again soon.”
“Out of Pocket” the song dropped in January. It follows Black Stone Cherry’s 2020 album, The Human Condition.
Black Stone Cherry will be playing U.S. shows throughout the spring and summer, including at the Welcome to Rockville, Sonic Temple and Rocklahoma festivals.
Jason Mraz‘s latest hit, “I Feel Like Dancing,” sounds like a fun little bop, but he says it was actually inspired by something very serious: trying to figure out where he fits into the pop music landscape these days.
“What’s going through my head is, ‘OK, I’m 45. Do people really want to see me dance? Do people really want to see me carry on? I’ve had my time,'” Jason tells ABC Audio. “And so I struggle with that, like, self-worth of, like, ‘Do I matter?'”
“And then out comes this song, and it’s like, ‘Yes! Who cares? It’s none of your business what people think of you. Just dance the way you want to dance while you can — y’know, while you’re still here.”
But while the dancing in “I Feel Like Dancing” is a metaphor for expressing himself, Jason says he also means actual dancing, which he does to great effect in the song’s choreography-heavy video.
“That’s something I’ve really wanted to do for a long time, but I guess I’ve been a little shy and untrained,” he notes. “So this song was meant to sort of crack me open and remind me that at the end of the day, I’m just an entertainer.”
He also hopes the song will inspire others to, as they say, “dance like nobody’s watching.”
As Jason explains, “If anyone tunes in, the point is so that they can feel some happiness and some joy and some motivation in their own life, to have a rhythm that they can skip to.”
“I Feel Like Dancing” is from Jason’s new album, Mystical Magical Rhythmical Radical Ride, due out June 23.
