The recovery of the eastern Australian humpback whale population has been described as nothing short of a “miracle,” such that the majestic beasts number more now than they did before commercial whaling. When homeowners today along the coasts of Australia file noise complaints, it’s likely to be from motor boats or late-night parties, but there […] The post Humpback Whale Population Now Well Above Pre-Whaling Levels in Australia appeared first on Good News Network.

News Star Wars Add Stephen Soderbergh’s Kylo Ren Movie to the Ever-Growing List of Canceled Star Wars Projects Adam Driver and Stephen Soderbergh were ready to go on this “really cool” idea before Disney said no. By Matthew Byrd | Published on October 21, 2025 Photo: Disney Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Disney In an interview with the Associated Press, Adam Driver revealed that he previously talked to Disney about returning to the Star Wars universe as Kylo Ren (aka Ben Solo). “I always was interested in doing another ‘Star Wars,’” said Driver. “I had been talking about doing another one since 2021. Kathleen (Kennedy) had reached out. I always said: With a great director and a great story, I’d be there in a second. I loved that character and loved playing him.” They seemingly found that director and that story. Specifically, Driver says he took a story concept from director Stephen Soderbergh (who Driver worked with on Logan Lucky) that was tentatively titled The Hunt for Ben Solo. The specifics of the story, which Driver describes as being “really cool,” remain a bit of a mystery. We know it would have taken place after The Rise of Skywalker, and Driver described it as a smaller “economical” concept that was both true to Soderbergh’s directing style and the Kylo Ren character. He also suggests that they hoped the smaller budget would get the movie made. Obviously, that didn’t happen. Driver and Soderbergh were ready to go, but the concept was ultimately shot down by Bob Iger and Alan Bergman, who simply couldn’t see a world where Kylo Ren was still alive. So even though Driver, Soderbergh, and screenwriters Rebecca Blunt and Scott Z. Burns were all on board, the idea seemingly died that day. You’re not alone if it seems odd that Disney wouldn’t approve a small-budget Star Wars film that excites Adam Driver and Stephen Soderbergh. However, that’s sadly pretty true to the history of the Star Wars franchise under Disney’s rule. While there is generally a long history of canceled Star Wars projects, here are just some of the ideas that never quite got off the ground at Disney: A Boba Fett movie directed by James Mangold The David Benioff and D.B. Weiss movie trilogy Guillermo del Toro’s Jabba the Hutt movie Various “up in the air” projects from Rian Johnson, Patty Jenkins, Taika Waititi, and more It’s impossible to argue that all of those ideas would have been turned into worthwhile movies. Yet, there’s a noteworthy pattern of notable names throwing their hats into the ring and wanting to be part of the Star Wars franchise only to never quite find a home. The “what could have been” universe continues to expand. [end-mark] The post Add Stephen Soderbergh’s Kylo Ren Movie to the Ever-Growing List of Canceled <i>Star Wars</i> Projects appeared first on Reactor.

In late September, the Trump administration’s Commerce Department delivered a major victory for American national security. In one fell swoop, the department closed thousands of loopholes in the U.S. export control regime, which restricts access to U.S. technology by China and other foreign adversaries. This action, commonly called the “50 percent rule,” will enable U.S. national security agencies to far more effectively stop China from using American technology against America. The Commerce Department sanctions malign companies by placing them on its “Entity List,” which makes it harder for those companies to access sensitive U.S. technology. But this process has long been hamstrung by a bureaucratic absurdity: the list did not automatically include a listed company’s “affiliates”—i.e., its parent company, subsidiaries, or any other part of its corporate family. This quirk was a relic of a bygone era when export controls focused more narrowly on nuclear and ballistic missile nonproliferation and normal trade relations with Communist China were considered possible. But as economy-wide struggle for technological dominance became the forefront of U.S.-China competition, the entity list became arguably the most important and commonly used U.S. national security tool to fight that competition. Yet it has never been easier for malign Chinese state-linked firms to create countless subsidiaries hidden in a globalized economy filled with opaque supply chains—and the entity list’s failure to cover affiliates became a major national security vulnerability. To see this, look no further than the U.S. government’s two-year-long attempt to restrict technology transfers to Inspur, one of China’s largest server and cloud computing companies, which has been identified by the Pentagon as part of China’s military-industrial complex. Inspur was added to the Entity List in 2023, but its subsidiaries were not—rendering the designation nearly meaningless. Inspur subsidiaries continued to “acquire U.S.-origin items in support of supercomputer projects for the Chinese government and/or military” until the Trump administration listed them in March of this year. The Department of Commerce clearly intended in 2023 to cut off Inspur’s access to sensitive U.S. technology with military applications, but the technical shortcomings of their regulations subverted their intent. Now, the 50% rule addresses such failures, ensuring that “any entity that is at least 50 percent owned by one or more entities on the Entity List will itself automatically be subject to Entity List restrictions.” This will also make it far easier for Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, which oversees export controls, to do its job. As critical and emerging technologies become ever more central to U.S. national security efforts towards China, BIS’s national security responsibilities have exploded in scope. Recognizing that, Congress has doubled BIS’s budget over the last decade—but still acknowledges on a bipartisan basis that BIS does not have sufficient resources to accomplish its mission. The 50% rule will help ensure that BIS is not overwhelmed in a futile, endless game of whack-a-mole with a constantly proliferating number of Chinese subsidiaries. The new rule also flips the script for private companies that sell military-capable technology to Chinese entities. Doubtlessly, private interests are lobbying ferociously to water down or reverse the change, because such sales will become far harder to conduct legally, and affected companies will have to overhaul their compliance process. Business models that skirted national security sanctions and exploited Commerce’s clerical errors will be far less viable. That’s precisely the point. With the 50% rule, the administration has demonstrated that it expects American companies to realign themselves with U.S. national security interests. Before the 50% rule, companies transferring sensitive technology to China could easily exploit loopholes; now, they’ll have to err more towards the side of caution. The administration deserves applause for finally closing a glaring vulnerability that China has exploited for far too long. Under the first Trump administration, the U.S. pioneered a suite of creative responses to China’s economic warfare. The 50% rule is a powerful continuation of that legacy that will deliver meaningful benefits for U.S. national security. The post Commerce’s 50% Rule is a National Security Victory appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For many countries, rhetoric surrounding religious freedom does not match reality. For an example, look no further than Nigeria. There, the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1993, agreeing that everyone has the right to both the expression and exercise of religion. Those same rights are guaranteed in the Nigerian Constitution. Yet despite that, one-third of Nigeria’s states have Islamic Sharia courts that have imposed the death penalty for blasphemy. That’s what happened to Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. A Sufi Muslim and musician who lived in the northern state of Kano, Yahaya posted on the WhatsApp social media platform lyrics to a song praising a prominent Muslim imam. In March 2020, authorities arrested Yahaya because, they charged, the lyrics elevated the imam, Ibrahim Niasse, “above the Prophet Muhammed.” Protesters burned down Yahaya’s home and, without granting him legal representation, a Sharia court found him guilty of insulting the religious creed and sentenced him to death in March 2022. Noting irregularities in that trial, a higher court ordered a retrial, but Yahaya appealed arguing that his case should be dismissed and the blasphemy law ruled unconstitutional. In August 2022, though, the Nigerian Court of Appeal upheld the blasphemy law and affirmed the retrial order. Yahaya appealed again, this time to the Nigerian Supreme Court, which heard his case on Sept. 25, 2025. Yahaya remains imprisoned and Kano officials have vowed to execute him publicly if the Supreme Court rules against him. Despite Nigeria’s international commitments and domestic constitutional guarantees, scenarios like these continue to occur. 13-year-old Umar Farouq was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2020 for using “foul language” against God. Student Deborah Samuel, accused of blasphemy for a WhatsApp message, was hunted down and murdered in 2022. Mubarak Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison in 2022 for a Facebook post considered blasphemous. In its annual reports, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommends that the State Department designate “countries of particular concern” where “the government engages in or tolerates ‘particularly severe’ violations of religious freedom.” Nigeria has been on this list every year since 2009 and was on the commission’s “watch list” for six years before that. Nigeria is not alone in failing to live out its claimed respect for religious freedom. The Pew Research Center, which has been tracking restrictions on religious freedom around the world since 2007, reported in 2024 that 35 countries that ratified the ICCPR still have “high” or “very high” restrictions on religious freedom. One-third of those countries previously voted for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also calls for teaching and promoting a robust concept of religious freedom. Even the Russian Constitution states: “Everyone shall be guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to profess individually or collectively any religion or not to profess any religion, and freely to choose, possess and disseminate religious and other convictions and act in accordance with them.” Russia ratified the ICCPR in 1968 but has been on one of the U.S. Commission’s lists since 2009. Yahaya has the able assistance of the Alliance Defense Fund International, tireless champions for not only the idea of religious freedom, but for making—and keeping—it a reality here and abroad. They note that 90% of Christians killed for their faith around the world are Nigerian and explain how the Nigerian Supreme Court’s decision in Yahaya’s case “has the potential to improve the human rights situation for the 200 million citizens of Nigeria, but also many in other countries.” If the Nigerian Supreme Court rules in Yahaya’s favor, it could be a step toward a religious freedom reality that more closely matches their rhetoric.  Whatever your religious faith, let’s pray that happens. The post Religious Freedom Around the World: Rhetoric vs. Reality appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the midst of a government shutdown, President Donald Trump has invited Republican senators to have lunch with him at the White House’s newly renovated Rose Garden. The exact nature of the lunch is not clear, even to some of the senators invited. Republican senators regularly meet for lunch on Tuesdays in the Capitol, but this time it will take place at Trump’s revamped Rose Garden patio—its grass now covered in tile and dubbed the “Rose Garden Club,” with tables and umbrellas to boot. “I have no idea,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told The Daily Signal when asked what the purpose of it would be. But there is a growing sense after three weeks of Democrats voting down the short-term continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government that Trump, who has brought to a close some of this Congress’ biggest debates, might have to step in to bring the shutdown to an end. Democrats have made hefty demands, including undoing the July budget reconciliation bill’s health care reforms and hamstringing the administration’s ability to rescind funding in the future. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kans., who said he was not sure if he would go to the lunch, told The Daily Signal, “Look, he’s the greatest deal maker in the world, so I have a feeling that he’ll have to be involved in closing it.” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., asked what could move the needle, said, “He’s the one’s going to move it.” The newly renovated Rose Garden. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images) Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Trump would likely discuss strategies to end the shutdown, but that giving in to Democrats’ demands was off the table. “I think the unified position of Republicans is we’re not doing anything until the government reopens,” Cornyn said. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told reporters, “Obviously, we’ll talk to him about [the shutdown], and he’ll give us his ideas, and we’ll talk about ours, anything we can do to try to get Democrats to join us and move on this clean CR.” Of course, Democrats would like nothing more than for Trump to grow tired of the shutdown and grant them a concession. Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., told reporters Monday, “It is long past time for the president to take this seriously and to get involved in negotiations.” Ending the Shutdown—Not Trump’s Problem? But there are some Republicans in the Senate who altogether reject the idea of Trump having to jump into this congressional dispute, instead arguing that Congress should fix its own mess. “It’s Congress’s job to pass the budget,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told The Daily Signal. “It’s our responsibility. The Democrats should vote to continue this [funding] here. They could have helped us get a budget done, and they didn’t.” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., similarly said that Democrats should speak to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., instead of Trump if they want to have their requests heard. “I think it’s more important for Democrats to sit down with Sen. Thune, because while the president has had his focus on international matters, Sen. Thune has been gearing up for a wide spectrum of options for how to fix health care in a more meaningful and long-term way. So I think Thune’s the right guy,” said Lummis of Democrats seeking talks on health care matters. The Shrinking Funding Window Republicans do have to make a major decision—whether or not to put another funding bill on the floor which would extend spending for a longer period. With each passing day, the utility of the funding extension under consideration—which was meant to buy time for the regular appropriations process—is decreasing. The bill was originally meant to provide seven weeks of funding but would provide just over four weeks now. Leader Thune himself told reporters Monday that it might be time for the House to come back into session to extend the continuing resolution. The House has been out of town since mid-September. “Yup, for sure. I mean, every day that passes, we have less time to fund the government,” he said when asked if the House should consider reconvening. “Every week that drags by, it becomes harder and harder to actually have a normal appropriations process, which pushes us into a CR mode, a long-term CR mode. And I just don’t think that’s the way that we ought to be funding the government around here, and every day that passes that becomes more possible as an eventuality.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Hoeven similarly recognized this problem and expressed openness to extending the bill. “I guess at some point we may have to, right? I mean, look at how long the Democrats have held up us now and cut into that timeline,” said Hoeven. “And really, we want to get back to regular order. I think that’s one of the reasons the Democrats shut it down, is they didn’t. We were back to regular order the way it was supposed to work, and they wanted to throw a kink in the works.” If the House were to come back into session to extend the bill, it would be a change in direction for Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., who has already rejected the idea when asked by the press. “It would do us no good to pass yet another CR out of the House, because it will meet the same fate. Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats want to close the government down. They are gleeful about this,” Johnson said last week. The post Why Is Trump Inviting Senators to Lunch at the Rose Garden? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Corporate America has abandoned neutrality. No longer content to stick to business, boardrooms now act like political war rooms—pushing ESG, DEI, and a host of left-wing social causes that have nothing to do with serving shareholders or customers.    Into this evolving landscape steps Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ, the recipient of The Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Courage Award, whose work represents a careful, principled response to the politicization of corporate governance.  Russ is proving what real leadership looks like—and doing something few in public office have attempted: He’s using the levers of shareholder engagement to shift companies back to their actual duty, fiduciary responsibility to the people whose money they manage. This isn’t activism disguised as oversight. It’s an effort to restore neutrality and fiduciary discipline to corporate decision-making.  Through the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, Russ has introduced shareholder proposals to some of the world’s largest corporations. The questions these proposals raise represent the longstanding expectation that corporate leaders act in the best interests of their shareholders and not as self-appointed arbiters of social policy.  Russ is reminding corporate America of a basic truth—companies exist to deliver value, not to advance ideology.   In the 2026 proxy season, proposals asked Visa and Mastercard to assess risks associated with facilitating payments for AI-generated pornography. Other filings called attention to whether companies like NVIDIA, Starbucks, and Amazon were applying charitable giving or healthcare policies in ways that could lead to unequal treatment or reputational exposure. Boeing was questioned on its use of DEI benchmarks in relation to federal contracting, while Qualcomm was asked to evaluate its business risks in the Chinese market.  These proposals follow a similar effort in 2025, when companies such as Alphabet, Netflix, and Lululemon were asked to justify their corporate giving practices and affiliations with groups that advance overtly political aims.   The common theme throughout is not opposition to any particular social stance. Instead, it’s a belief that companies should refrain from adopting such stances altogether, particularly when doing so may compromise their primary obligations to investors, employees, and customers.  Russ does not seek to politicize corporate behavior. His proposals are neither prescriptive nor coercive. They ask companies to justify their policies, assess risks, and consider whether a more neutral posture might better serve long-term business performance. That such modest requests now appear unreasonable is in itself a reflection of how thoroughly ideological expectations have become embedded in corporate life.  Beyond shareholder engagement, Russ has also worked to reform Oklahoma’s proxy voting policies to align with principles of corporate responsibility to shareholders. By ensuring that state-managed assets are voted in accordance with fiduciary duty—rather than social or political agendas—he’s declaring a clear principle: Public funds exist to serve the public, not to virtue signal.  This attitude shouldn’t be limited to Oklahoma. States collectively steward trillions in public assets. If those dollars are hijacked by corporate activists, they become tools of cultural subversion rather than engines of prosperity. Russ has offered a roadmap for how states can defend their citizens from the weaponization of capital: by restoring neutrality to the marketplace, protecting the American family, and reminding corporations to stay in their lane.  That is why Heritage honored Russ with the 2025 Courage Award. He is not bowing to the Left’s intimidation or surrendering the financial future of Oklahomans to radical ideologues. Instead, he’s standing firm—and showing conservatives nationwide that it is possible to fight back and save this country from those seek to hollow it out from within.  Russ has charted a course defined by quiet conviction. His work suggests that it is still possible to engage corporate America thoughtfully, to reassert basic principles of fiduciary care, and to preserve the proper boundaries between commerce and politics.  That, in today’s climate, is a bold act of genuine leadership.  The post Todd Russ Shows States How to Push Back on Woke Capital appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Joao lived in social isolation for about 45 years, but now he keeps an eye on young chimpanzees.

If the age of the universe is one year, this galaxy's light comes from January 3.

The simpler answer is: there is no simple answer.

The leftist who was elected president of the Oxford Union in June was among the radicals who rushed to celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination. Like others before him, George Abaraonye has learned the hard way that there are consequences for such depravity. How it startedAbaraonye wrote in a now-deleted Instagram post, the authenticity of which he confirmed to the Oxford student newspaper Cherwell, "Charlie Kirk got shot loool."'Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?'While Abaraonye treated Kirk's murder as a laugh-worthy matter, Kirk treated Abaraonye courteously when they debated just months earlier at the Oxford Union. Abaraonye, a philosophy and politics student who has served also as a "racial and ethnic minorities rep" for the university's junior common room, later suggested to Cherwell that he had made the remark in a "moment of shock"; however, he reportedly made similarly depraved remarks in a WhatsApp group chat with other students. Abaraonye wrote, for instance, "Charlie Kirk got shot, let's f****** go," reported the Telegraph.The Oxford Union president-elect's apparent delight at seeing a political assassination on a university campus prompted outrage on both sides of the Atlantic.RELATED: 'No longer welcome': State Dept. revokes visas of foreigners who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty ImagesSpeakers who were scheduled to join the Oxford Union for debate began canceling, including Liora Rez, executive director of the U.S.-based watchdog group Stop Antisemitism, and Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Lux Capital.Stop Antisemitism noted to the Oxford Union that "employees will not be engaging with your debate society due to safety concerns and your President elect's pro violent stance."Wolfe noted that he would not attend "until cultural leadership from the top celebrates peace + coexistence + civil discourse + denounces violence."Among those who wondered aloud about what had happened to the Oxford Union was Claire Coutinho, a Conservative member of Parliament, who stated, "The Oxford Union is meant to be one of the best student debating chambers in the world. Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?"The Oxford Union finally piped up with a condemnation, expressing sympathy for Kirk's family and stressing that Abaraonye's views "do not represent the Oxford Union's current leadership or committee's view."Abaraonye decided ultimately to paint himself as the victim, suggesting in a statement to Cherwell published September 11 that his heinous remarks were "shaped by the context of Mr. Kirk's own rhetoric" and that he is now the target of "racist comments and a myriad of threats."How it's goingSeveral weeks after Valerie Amos, the radical Labour Party politician who serves as master of University College, Oxford, defended Abaraonye and announced that no disciplinary action will be taken against him, the Oxford Union scheduled a vote of no confidence in the president-elect.The in-person poll took place on Saturday, and the results were published on Monday.Of the 1,746 ballots ultimately cast, 1,228 members voted to oust Abaraonye; 501 members voted to keep the radical; and 17 members spoiled their ballots. Having passed the required two-thirds threshold of 1,164, the majority spared the Oxford Union from having the radical as their leader. Abaraonye — who previously suggested that a vote against him was a victory for hate — cried foul after his visitation by consequence, releasing a statement characterizing the vote as "compromised" and the result as invalid.The statement says the radical "is proud and thankful to have the support of well in excess of a majority of students at Oxford, who voted to have a safe election and resist attempts to subvert democracy."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!