Politics
Why the world is staying silent as healthcare collapses
Gaza is dying every day. Its hospitals are collapsing, its doctors are overwhelmed, and the world remains largely silent.
Children are dying for lack of medicine. Patients are left untreated. Doctors are forced to decide who might live and who must be left to die. All of this is happening in full view of the United Nations and powerful states that respond with words instead of action.
This silence is not neutral. It is a profound moral failure.
Healthcare in Gaza has been reduced to survival triage. Hospitals have become places of delayed death. Essential medicines are running out. Electricity is repeatedly cut. Medical staff work under siege, exhaustion, and constant threat. Civilians are trapped between occupation on one side and international neglect on the other.
World is silent on Gaza
Why does the world remain silent? Because political alliances and economic interests are prioritised over civilian lives. Because Gaza is treated as a distant crisis rather than a humanitarian emergency unfolding in real time.
Every day without intervention becomes another day of systematic death. Doctors in Gaza face impossible conditions. They work through destruction, shortages, and trauma, while international support is delayed or blocked. Pressure on the occupying power remains minimal or symbolic.
This silence is not just political weakness. It is an insult to the idea of a global conscience.
The collapse of Gaza’s healthcare system is not a natural disaster. It is a political and humanitarian crime carried out in plain sight. Every hour without medical supplies costs lives. Every day without action deepens impunity.
Gaza is not just a besieged enclave. It is a mirror held up to the world.
It asks a simple question of those who claim to defend human rights: why is the mass suffering of civilians tolerated while the world looks away?
The blood of Gaza is already answering. History will not measure morality by statements or sympathy, but by action. Every delay is another failure. Every silence is another verdict on humanity itself.
Featured image via AFP
Politics
Prosecutors drafted his ‘death’ statement a day early
Official documents released by the US Department of Justice show that prosecutors prepared their announcement of Jeffrey Epstein’s death a day before it happened.
As Skwawkbox has already covered, the same file release proves that an anonymous message board post, sent before the ‘death’ was made public by someone who claimed to be a prison officer guarding Epstein, was indeed posted by one of the prison guards on duty that night. The guard said that Epstein had been secretly removed from his cell — alive — and taken away in an ambulance whose arrival had not been pre-booked or recorded afterward.
Epstein — another plot twist
Now, another official file in the release (archived here) shows the draft announcement on Epstein’s death prepared by US Attorney’s Office in southern New York. Except that the draft is dated 9 August 2019 — a day before Epstein’s ‘death’:
This is not a mere typo, and not just because a bad typist would have had to hit two digits for ’10’ instead of one for ‘9’. The draft’s day of the week is also wrong — Friday instead of Saturday. Epstein’s body was not discovered until 6.30am on 10 August. It seems vanishingly unlikely that someone drafting the announcement would have forgotten what day of the week it was.
The draft was dated Saturday 10 August when it was eventually released. Epstein’s ‘death’ was officially ruled a suicide by hanging despite the prison’s failure to produce a noose or ligature. The body examined by independent doctors also had a fracture to the hyoid bone of the body, a sign of manual strangulation rather than hanging. However, many have observed apparent differences in the facial features of the body compared to Epstein, particularly in the nose and, where it would be very hard to hide, in the ears. The government was also found to have heavily edited prison CCTV footage of the area around Epstein’s cell.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
I Waited On Catherine O’Hara And It Changed My Life
“What’s your name?” Catherine O’Hara asked me, leaning forward in the booth. “What’s your story?”
I was standing in a swanky restaurant in New York City wearing a black dress short enough to satisfy management, my hands clasped behind my back in case a manager appeared. I had just broken the most important rule of the job: Never acknowledge a celebrity.
Three months earlier, I had dropped off my resume anywhere I could in hopes of securing a job that would supplement what my $35-a-week publishing intern stipend wouldn’t get me, which was, of course, everything but my subway fare.
I was hungry in every sense of the word. By the end of the day, I was offered three serving jobs and took them all. One was at this legendary restaurant continuously full of rock stars, Oscar-winning actors and models.
During my interview, the manager had ignored my flimsy (both in substance and content) resume and assessed my body instead. My waist. My chest. My legs. He said they had a place for me as a cocktail server in the private lounge where the windows were tinted, the tables were low and loungy, and the only clientele allowed in were ultra-wealthy patrons and celebrities.
The manager told me to show up later that night for my first training shift and emphasised that the dress code was all black, dresses only, hemlines not to exceed the end of my fingertips when my arms were hanging by my sides.
“We prefer the skirt to graze your first knuckles,” he said, making a fist and pointing to the ridged top of his hand to make his point.
I was 22, fresh out of college, and ready to do whatever it took to become a writer. If I can make it here… I thought.
When I walked in for my first shift, I was surprised to see a friend from college working at the host stand. Back in Colorado, he’d been a boisterous theater kid — lanky with bright blue eyes and flamboyant energy. Now he looked hollowed out — dark under the eyes, less “youthfully thin” and more underfed. He seemed tired and nervous, and his eyes flicked around as if we might get in trouble for hugging.

The server I was assigned to shadow approached the host stand to retrieve me. She was gorgeous, waifish, and in place of the air of sadness my college acquaintance had, she’d built a bitter bubble of sarcasm around herself.
She walked me quickly through the labyrinthine back-of-house, dodging catcalls from her co-workers and managers deftly. She listed off rules as I struggled to keep up. Three of them stuck out.
1. We were required to try everything on the menu, which perked me up as a hungry, broke person used to only eating family meal slop before a shift.
2. We were a “pooled house,” which meant the managers gathered and then divvied up our tips (after shaving a cut).
3. We were not allowed — under any circumstances — to reveal that we recognised a celebrity. We were to treat everyone as an anonymous guest. Asking for an autograph, a photo, or even announcing that you were a fan of anyone famous would result in immediate termination.
Perhaps this last rule sounds easy enough to follow, but during my first training shift, Jay-Z, Adam Sandler and Mariah Carey were among our guests.
I lasted one month at this restaurant. Long enough to eat my way through the menu and gather enough celebrity run-in anecdotes to last a lifetime. My cocktail party stories suddenly involved run-ins with Bill Belichick, Jon Bon Jovi, Jonah Hill and Josh Hartnett, among many, many others. But not even these exciting encounters could make up for the depleting atmosphere of working in a place where every staff member was a hopeful singer, model, actor or artist.
After my first shift, I witnessed the server who was training me earn over $1,000 in tips — then walk out the door with only $220 after management’s cut. When I asked about the tip breakdown, my manager was finishing a line of cocaine in his windowless basement office. His explanation made little sense, but he laughed at my confusion, and I left his office feeling dejected and violated.
However, what really convinced me that I couldn’t survive there long was when I realised that my co-workers all seemed to be struggling with disordered eating. Years earlier, after my dad had died suddenly of a heart attack, I’d developed my own eating disorder — a coping mechanism that came with consequences. I’d slowly healed in college, partly thanks to a tight circle of wonderful friends. Now, without them and being surrounded by behaviours that I instantly recognised as potentially damaging, I felt my anxiety rising in a new — though disturbingly familiar — way.
During my work shifts, my trainer-server and I worked through the restaurant’s menu, each night picking something new for me to try, and we’d sit on the back staircase (there was no break room) while she explained the dish to me. No matter what it was — tuna on crispy rice, a black truffle pizza, half a roast chicken on a mountain of garlic mashed potatoes — she refused to have a bite.
“No way. I’m trying to be an actress,” she told me. “I wouldn’t even eat a cucumber here. They put sesame oil on everything.”
She joked about it — “I don’t eat, really. None of us do.”
Though I wasn’t attempting to make it as an actress, I still began to leave food on the plate, uneasy about doing so, but also worried she might have a point. She was putting her goals first. Hunger as discipline. Emptiness as a badge of ambition. Maybe fed girls didn’t make it in NYC.

By the time I walked in for my last training shift on a Sunday night, I was thinner, my spirit was beaten down, and I was worried about the road I seemed to be headed back down.
I was also still broke. I’d trained for seven shifts at $10 an hour, and I was relieved when my trainer asked me to take this shift alone. The managers were nowhere to be found, as usual, and she wanted to meet up with her boyfriend — a musician who was always cheating on her. The restaurant was slow, she told me I now knew what I was doing, and, best of all, she would let me take all of the tips I made home.
At nearly 9 o’clock, three women walked in: two women I’d never seen before and the one and only Catherine O’Hara. I froze. My mind flashed to O’Hara’s squiggly sideburns in “Beetlejuice.” Her iconic “Kevin!” in “Home Alone.” The dozens and dozens of times my sister and I had watched “Best in Show.” All of the characters she’d played that shaped my sense of humour. My sense of joy. How could I possibly serve her without telling her I loved her?
They sat in a window booth with Catherine in the centre. When I went to greet her party, her friends enthusiastically interrupted to tell me they were taking her out for her birthday. She shook her head sheepishly, embarrassed and amused.
“We’ve been friends forever,” she told me. “They don’t let me get away with anything.”
As a writer, I try to avoid cliches, but reader, her eyes truly sparkled with life and kindness.
Soon, they were my only table. I folded napkins a short distance away from them and watched the three friends enjoy each other’s company — and one of everything from the starter section, plus a burger, the tuna and the chicken. They shared a bottle of wine and giggled like girls.
Over the course of their meal, I realised that in just a few weeks, the restaurant I stood in had distorted what success should look like, but no one could extinguish the aura of true success that radiated off Catherine. She had “it” — that thing I’d come to NYC to prove I had, too, and “it” wasn’t thinness or ambition at all costs, or even talent, though of course she had that, too. It was her sense of self — how she held herself and confidently, yet humbly, moved through the world — that no one could rival… or take away from her.
By the time I dropped the chocolate soufflé off, their table held the last lit candle in the restaurant.
I placed the dessert in front of Catherine, and then I took a breath.
“I’m not supposed to bother our famous diners,” I said, “but I just have to tell you how much your acting means to me and my sister. ‘Best in Show’ is our favourite movie, and your character is my favourite.”
“Me?” she said, genuinely incredulous. “Your favourite!”
“I’m sorry to bother you. I just had to say something. Happy birthday.” I quickly turned away, mortified.
“It was her sense of self — how she held herself and confidently, yet humbly, moved through the world — that no one could rival… or take away from her.”
“Wait,” she called after me, “What’s your name? What’s your story?”
She insisted that I join them in their booth and asked what kind of artist I was.
“Every server in this city has an interesting story,” she said, gesturing her spoon toward me, her mouth full of birthday soufflé, and the trio’s attention now fully, yet comfortably, on me.
I told her all about my dream to be an author and about the short story I was working on.
“What if one of the characters dies?” she riffed, delighted.
Were we collaborating? I could hardly breathe.
I was glad to have refused their offer of a bite of soufflé because the manager suddenly appeared from his basement lair, and I immediately popped out of the booth.
“I’ll just grab you the check,” I said, with my arms behind my back again, in an attempt to look professional. She winked at me as I walked away.
She paid the bill herself, though her friends tried, and though my tip out didn’t reflect it, she left me 100% on their $400 bill and a note that read, “I know your day will come. Keep writing.”
The manager wouldn’t let me keep the receipt, but I didn’t need it.
Catherine had given me something invaluable that night. Her kindness has always stayed with me. She showed me a different way to be an artist — to be a person. She chose passion, curiosity, individuality and humility in an industry that often made that feel impossible.
I never went back to the restaurant again after that night. I left before the thinness of the place convinced me I had to disappear to deserve a future. There were plenty of other workplace cultures ahead of me that would also try to normalise self-erasure as ambition, but years later, when I sat down to write this essay just days after Catherine O’Hara’s death, I could still clearly conjure that moment with her. Thanks to her, I still try to follow my appetite, to seek fullness and to believe, even on my hungriest days, that my day will come.
Sammi LaBue is the founder of Fledgling Writing Workshops (“Best Writing Workshops,” Timeout NY) and basically obsessed with the feeling of having an idea and writing it down. Her latest project is a recently finished memoir written in collaboration with her mom titled “Bad Apples.” Some of her other essays can be found in BuzzFeed, Slate, Literary Hub, The Sun, Glamour and more. To follow her writing journey and find opportunities to write with her flow, visit fledgling.substack.com.
Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
Help and support:
Politics
Israel’s hidden war exposed through proxy militias
Since 7 October 2023, reports indicate a dangerous shift in Israel’s tactics in Gaza. Rather than relying solely on direct military force, Israel has increasingly used local collaborating militias.
These groups operate covertly within Palestinian society. Their roles include intelligence gathering, luring resistance members, and carrying out targeted assassinations under direct Israeli intelligence supervision.
The starting point: filmed confessions
An Al Jazeera investigation, broadcast on What Lies Beneath, marked a turning point. It featured filmed confessions from an agent arrested after an assassination operation in Gaza. The agent said he received direct orders from an Israeli intelligence officer. He was instructed to wear a hidden camera to document the killing.
The operation took place on 14 December 2025. The victim was an internal security officer reportedly responsible for monitoring collaborators.
Footage showed real-time communication between the agent and his handler. Instructions continued until the moment of execution, involving silenced weapons and electric bicycles.
Gaza — why militias instead of soldiers
Experts say Israel’s reliance on militias reflects operational difficulty inside Gaza. Dense population and social cohesion make undercover Israeli units costly and risky.
Using local agents allows Israel to minimise losses. These agents are expendable if exposed, unlike regular soldiers.
Security data suggest many militia members were recruited from individuals with criminal backgrounds. During the war, they engaged in looting before being absorbed into intelligence operations.
In exchange, they were granted freedom of movement, protection, and tolerance for aid theft. Their personal interests were deliberately tied to organised violence.
“Yellow zones” and calculated chaos
Militia activity increasingly centres on so-called “yellow zones.” There, they intimidate civilians and disrupt internal security.
Sources describe this as a strategy to exhaust Gaza’s social fabric without direct military presence. Some groups now function as a de facto “shadow authority” for the occupation. These developments indicate a broader strategy of proxy warfare. Israel is shifting toward covert control, infiltration, and internal destabilisation.
This approach aims to fracture society itself, transforming daily life into a battleground of suspicion and fear.
Evidence shows these militias are now central to Israel’s strategy in Gaza. Their continued use increases risks to civilian safety and social cohesion. Exposing and dismantling this system is urgent. It represents one of the most destructive aspects of the hidden war unfolding inside the Strip.
Featured image via WSJ
Politics
Here’s What Your Preferred Plane Seat Says About You
As I settled in for the 17-hour flight from Australia to the United States, I turned to the vacant seat between my wife and me and smiled. While other passengers might have thought it was a stroke of luck, they didn’t know this was deliberate. It was the result of my seat selection obsession.
The ritual starts the moment I book a flight: I check legroom measurements and read seat reviews, then study the airline’s seat map to predict which seats will stay open. There are rules: I go for an aisle seat on the right side of the aircraft, and on wide-body planes with a 3-3-3 configuration, I pick one in the middle section.
Even after I’ve locked in my seat, I can’t stop. In the days leading up to departure, I’m refreshing the “Manage My Booking” page, monitoring which seats fill up, debating whether to switch to 12D or stick with 11D.
Turns out, plenty of travelers have their own versions of this routine. Some travelers insist on the same side of the plane every time. Others will only sit in odd-numbered rows. A few refresh seat maps obsessively, fixated on bathroom proximity or meal service order.
Performance psychology specialist Sam Wones said this quirk runs deeper than seat preference. “It reflects a need for control in environments where individuals feel they lack it,” he explained. “Ritualistic actions like seat-map checking can reduce anxiety about the unknown.”
When everything about air travel feels chaotic, securing a specific seat sends a signal to your nervous system that something is manageable.
These rituals can be remarkably specific. Georgia Hopkins, a freelance travel writer, only sits in odd-numbered rows: 11A ideally, or 13A/15A if that’s taken. Rows 12 or 14 simply don’t exist in her world. “I can’t do even numbers. If not 11, I have to sit in an odd-numbered row,” she said. She also insists on a window seat as far forward as possible, so she boards earlier, exits faster and is served first.
Row 25. Always row 25. Amanda Kendle is so committed to this specific row that she will not change it, even if a better option opens up. Not because it has extra legroom or is closer to the exit, but because it is her lucky number.
“Some part of my anxious flyer mentality tells me if I change my seat, the plane will crash and my original seat would have been safer,” she explained. When traveling with her teenage daughter, who insists on a window seat, Kendle still claims row 25; she just takes the middle instead of the aisle. Her flexibility still operates within strict boundaries.

wera Rodsawang via Getty Images
These rituals feel personal, even irrational. Chris Lipp, a social psychologist at Tulane University who studies power dynamics, said they expose how confident we feel in public spaces.
“People who feel more powerful are less sensitive to sitting next to someone,” Lipp explained. “They’re comfortable with less interpersonal space, less worried about others encroaching on their space, and less vigilant because they don’t feel threatened by others.”
The dreaded middle seat, which most people avoid, illustrates this power dynamic. Lipp notes that powerful people can tolerate it. They will claim both armrests without hesitation, exuding a confidence that likely extends beyond the cabin. Anxious travellers either guard the armrest like a border wall or avoid it completely to prevent any contact.
Seat location also reflects travellers’ approach to control and efficiency, Wones says. Front-of-plane passengers want to disembark quickly and avoid feeling trapped, valuing efficiency and a faster process. Back-of-plane flyers operate differently. They’re more relaxed about waiting, less concerned with being first off the aircraft and often actively avoid the chaos of the front rows. Neither preference is inherently better, but they reflect different tolerances for waiting.
Beyond front vs. back, another choice reveals personality: window or aisle. Wones said introverts gravitate toward window seats for privacy and control, while extroverts prefer aisle seats for mobility and easier interaction.
Lisa Burns, founder of The Travel Photography Club, understands this completely. On a flight from Tokyo to Helsinki over the Arctic Circle, she ended up in an aisle seat with the window passenger asleep, shutter closed. “All I could imagine were icebergs and glaciers below,” she said. “I had to practice deep breathing because it took so much self-control not to lean across and look out the window.” For a travel photographer, being trapped on the aisle meant missing exactly what she needed to see.
I’m firmly in the aisle camp, though my reasons are less about interaction and more about autonomy. I can move whenever I want without performing a gymnastics routine to climb over a sleeping passenger or getting the side-eye when I’m up and down for the third time in an hour. On a long flight, this freedom matters. Maybe it makes me someone who needs to feel in charge of something, even if it’s just bathroom breaks. Or perhaps I just drink too much water.
My right-side preference has a practical foundation. Analysis of Air Canada and American Airlines seat data shows passengers disproportionately choose the left side, which means the right side offers better odds of an empty seat beside me.
Wones said that once you unconsciously favour one side, your brain locks onto it. “Some people unconsciously favour one side due to how their brain processes spatial awareness or comfort,” he explained. Maybe it felt slightly better once, or you had a good flight on that side. The reason doesn’t matter. Once the pattern exists, you stick with it, even when both sides are identical. It becomes less about logic and more about what feels right.
If you’re reading this thinking, who obsesses over seats?, that reaction itself reveals something, according to Wones. Strategic planners are highly conscientious and prefer control. Acceptors are more adaptable, with lower anxiety and a higher tolerance for uncertainty.
When my wife catches me refreshing the seat map days before a flight, she thinks I’m ridiculous. She’s probably right. But 17 hours squeezed into economy with an empty seat next to us? That’s when ridiculous becomes genius.
Politics
Why Israel is blocking foreign journalists from entering
Since the start of the war on Gaza in October 2023, Israel has enforced an unprecedented media blockade. Foreign journalists and international media outlets have been barred from entering the Strip.
This policy has become one of the longest media blackouts in a modern conflict. It raises urgent questions about Israel’s motives and objectives.
Gaza — controlling the narrative and obscuring the truth
The ban on foreign journalists does not appear to be a temporary security measure. Instead, it functions as a systematic policy aimed at controlling the narrative of events in Gaza. Without independent international reporting, official Israeli accounts circulate with little scrutiny. This limits accountability and obscures the scale of destruction and civilian suffering.
In a war that has killed and wounded tens of thousands, the absence of international media has distorted global understanding and weakened factual reporting.
An intentional media vacuum
The ban on foreign journalists coincides with the direct targeting of Palestinian reporters inside Gaza. Together, these actions create a deliberate media vacuum. This severely limits source diversity and restricts reporting to a narrow range of perspectives. It prevents independent investigations based on eyewitness testimony and on-the-ground verification.
Observers argue this vacuum is deliberate, designed to reduce coverage and limit international accountability.
Obstructing documentation and legal accountability
Human rights and press freedom organisations warn that blocking media access hinders documentation of violations against civilians.
Without international journalists present, collecting the visual and forensic evidence needed for legal cases becomes far more difficult. This weakens prospects for accountability in international courts.
The media blackout is therefore seen as a tool to delay justice and entrench impunity. Israel cites security concerns to justify the ban. However, international press organisations—including the Foreign Press Association—say no credible security rationale exists.
The controversy has deepened due to the Israeli Supreme Court repeatedly postponing rulings on petitions demanding media access. These delays rely on classified evidence that cannot be challenged.
Journalists view this as a continuation of the ban under a legal veneer.
Gaza — a clear violation of press freedom
Press unions and human rights groups say the ban violates Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Both guarantee freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information without restriction.
Media experts warn that normalising such bans sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. With Gaza still closed to foreign journalists, the conflict extends beyond military force into media, legal, and ethical realms. The blackout is not incidental. It is a central mechanism to conceal the war’s consequences and keep cameras away from one of the worst humanitarian disasters of modern times.
As more than 2.4 million Palestinians remain trapped in Gaza, calls are growing to break the blockade. Allowing journalists in is now seen as a moral and professional imperative—to ensure the world sees Gaza without filters or omission.
featured image via EBU
Politics
18 Most Shocking Super Bowl Halftime Show Moments Ever
You really know you’ve made it as an A-list music star when the NFL invites you to perform during the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
In the past few years alone, massive names as varied as The Weeknd, Jennifer Lopez, Usher, Kendrick Lamar and, of course, Rihanna have all wowed with their performances – but there have been a fair few shocking moments along the way.
This year, the honour falls to music superstar Bad Bunny, fresh from his Album Of The Year win at the 2026 Grammys, and the world is sure to be watching to see what he pulls out of the bag on one of the world’s most-watched music events.
Indeed, as history has proved time and time again, the Super Bowl Halftime Show hasn’t always been just about the music – with plenty of shocking and headline-grabbing moments taking place at the annual sports event.
As we get ready for what could easily become one of the year’s biggest nights in music, here are 18 more of the biggest Super Bowl shockers from years gone by…
18. Blackout Bowl (2013)

Jamie Squire via Getty Images
This shocking moment didn’t come during Beyoncé’s Halftime Show but shortly after it, with the football game that followed (snooze…) having to suspend play for a full 34 minutes due to a power outage.
Evidently, the power of the Queen Bey is so strong, it can even plunge an entire stadium into darkness. Bow down, bitches indeed.
Watch the full performance here.
17. Usher Bowl (2024)

Christopher Polk via Getty Images
Usher’s jam-packed set included powerful vocals, surprise A-list guests and impressive choreo.
Looking back, though, we think this impromptu shirtless moment is probably what we think of most when we reflect on the Burn singer’s Super Bowl appearance…
Watch the full performance here.
16. #LeftShark Bowl (2015)
She’s not always the first person you think of when it comes to great live performers, but Katy Perry proved a massive point when she really brought it at the Super Bowl.
Over the course of her Halftime Show, Katy entered atop a giant lion, floated through the air while singing Firework, introduced Missy Elliott and convincingly rocked out to I Kissed A Girl with Lenny Kravitz.
And yet… the next day all anyone seemed to want to talk about was the “Left Shark” incident, when one of her dancers lost their way in the middle of a routine, while dressed as a shark.
It’s a pity, really, because Katy’s was one of the most impressive and elaborate Super Bowl shows of the 2010s.
But also… what was that shark doing?!
Watch the full performance here.
15. Madonna Bowl (2012)

PictureGroup/REX/Shutterstock
There were plenty of shockers during Madonna’s Super Bowl show (one of which we’ll get to a bit later on in this list).
Her entrance? Iconic. Her guest performers? Alarming. Her choreo? Near perfect, even if she did trip just a little bit while shuffling with LMFAO.
Luckily, this would be the last time Madonna ever had to worry about a slip-up on live television. Apart from this, of course. Oh, and this.
Watch the full performance here.
14. Hip-Hop Bowl (2022)

Kevin C. Cox via Getty Images
If nothing else, the 2022 Halftime Show will be remembered for the epic level of stars that took part, with singer Mary J Blige and rappers Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and 50 Cent among those sharing the stage in a celebration of hip-hop music throughout the years.
There were some big headline-grabbing moments, too – not least when 50 Cent recreated his upside down entrance from his In Da Club music video, and Eminem made a show of solidarity by taking the knee in the middle of the performance.
Watch the full performance here.
13. Boss Bowl (1996)

Diana Ross’ Super Bowl performance was jam-packed with hits, dating back from the music legend’s days in the Supremes right through to her solo success.
Arguably the most iconic moment of the lot came right at the end, though, when she left the field in a helicopter. There’s travelling in style, and then there’s this…
Watch the full performance here.
12. Prince Bowl (2007)

Frank Micelotta/REX/Shutterstock
Nobody would question that Prince is one of the greatest live performers in pop history, but he really cemented this at the 2007 Super Bowl. As well as covering tracks by Queen, Foo Fighters and Bob Dylan, he effortlessly performed his own songs Let’s Go Crazy and Baby I’m A Star.
He closed the show with a version of his signature hit, Purple Rain, made all the more significant by the literal downpour that accompanied it – the real shocker being that Prince still managed to retain his cool throughout. What a man.
Watch the full performance here.
11. Disney Bowl (1991)

Gin Ellis via Getty Images
If you want to talk about shockers, just wait.
Before it was so commonplace for huge musicians to perform at the Halftime Show, organisers used to think a little more outside the box. That’s why in 1991, they handed over the reins to the Walt Disney Company.
Disney’s show is not one that’s looked back on particularly fondly, with a wave of local child performers sharing the stage with the company’s iconic characters (as well as New Kids On The Block, for some reason), while also somehow shoehorning in a tribute to those fighting in the Gulf war, and a message from then-president George Bush.
Fortunately for everyone involved, this was also the year Whitney Houston blew everyone away with her rendition of the National Anthem, which is what most of us remember about the Super Bowl that year.
Watch the full performance here.
10. Gaga Bowl (2017)
Known for making a statement in some way or another whenever she performs live, we were curious to see how Lady Gaga would kick things off when given the massive platform of the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
And really, what better way is there to make an entrance than a pre-recorded patriotic tune sung from the top of a stadium, before leaping off it to perform your hits on the field below?
Watch the full performance here.
9. Timberlake Bowl (2018)

Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
After a great run of successive mega-stars performing at the Super Bowl , beginning with Madonna and ending with Lady Gaga, the stakes were high when it was announced that Justin Timberlake would be taking the stage for the first time since 2004.
Regrettably, his performance didn’t quite live up to expectations, with many criticising his unusual fashion choices, as well as the decision not to invite Janet Jackson to perform with him following their ill-fated performance more than a decade earlier (more on that later, unsurprisingly).
Watch the full performance here.
8. Diva Bowl (2020)

Focus On Sport via Getty Images
In 2020, the NFL lined up two legendary artists to share top billing with Jennifer Lopez and Shakira teaming up for the Halftime Show.
The pair’s performance was packed full of memorable moments, with Shakira showing off her famous belly-dancing skills, crowd-surfing and paid homage to both her Colombian and Lebanese heritage.
Meanwhile, J-Lo sneaked in a cameo appearance from her teenager Emme, and turned her hit Let’s Get Loud into a unifying (and surprisingly effective) protest anthem.
However, some more conservative critics took issue with the star when she showed off some of the pole-dancing skills she’d honed while making the film Hustlers. There’s clearly just no pleasing some people…
Watch the full performance here.
7. Weeknd Bowl (2021)

Kevin C. Cox via Getty Images
Given that The Weeknd’s Halftime Show performance came pretty much slap-bang in the middle of the pandemic, there was a big question mark over exactly how he would be able to pull it all off.
True to form, he managed just fine.
Embodying the “lounge lizard” character that he took on while promoting his After Hours album, the singer put an unusually eerie spin on the Super Bowl Halftime Show, at one point getting lost in a creepy maze before heading out onto the pitch, where he was met by an army of identically-dressed backing dancers in facial bandages.
Watch the full performance here.
6. Kendrick Bowl (2025)

It’s tough to know quite where to start with Kendrick Lamar’s performance from 2025.
One of the best showman of his generation, it says something that above all of that, what we best remember Kendrick holding court at the centre of it all.
Watch the full performance here.
5. Rihanna Bowl (2023)

Focus On Sport via Getty Images
Having been away from the stage for a number of years, the world was waiting with baited breath for Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance, which she’d previously teased would include a mysterious surprise guest.
What no one could have anticipated, though, was that Rih was talking about her unborn child, not least because she’d welcomed her son RZA only a few months earlier.
Reports claimed that the chart-topping star even managed to conceal her pregnancy from almost everyone involved in putting the performance together – which made it almost using the Super Bowl Halftime Performance as her way of announcing to the world she had another baby on the way all the more surprising.
She has since welcomed a second son, Riot, with her partner, fellow musician A$AP Rocky.
Watch the full performance here.
4. Reunion Bowl (2013)
It had been one of the worst kept secrets in music, but we still did a little squeal when the other two members of Destiny’s Child popped up during Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance (and what a pop up it was, we could happily watch Michelle Williams finding her feet after shooting up from the floor for a good two hours without getting bored).
The trio whizzed through Bootylicious and Independent Women before joining Beyoncé for Single Ladies, complete with the video’s original choreo.
Watch the full performance here.
3. Middle Finger Bowl (2012)
Madonna was the main event during the 2012 Halftime Show, but it was M.I.A. who wound up generating the most headlines.
Upon finding out that her pre-recorded vocals would be cutting out the word “shit” as she appeared during Give Me All Your Luvin’, the British rapper decided to take matters into her own hands, or rather fingers, by flipping off the camera at the end of her part of the performance.
Although the incident only lasted a split second, it had big repercussions for M.I.A., who wound up facing a lawsuit for millions of dollars from the NFL over the unplanned incident.
Watch the full performance here.
2. Formation Bowl (2016)

Thearon W. Henderson via Getty Images
Beyoncé had already begun addressing social issues, specifically feminism, on her self-titled album at the end of 2013, but she cranked things up a good few notches when she kicked off the Lemonade era.
This stage of her career began with a guest spot during Coldplay’s Super Bowl show, where her first ever live performance of Formation wound up creating a buzz thanks to its allusions to Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Beyoncé’s fans lapped it up, and her empowering Super Bowl performance built anticipation for when Lemonade arrived a few months later, following similar themes.
Watch the full performance here.
1. Hey Jude Bowl (2005)

Brian Bahr via Getty Images
1. Janet Jackson Bowl (2004)

“Play at the Super Bowl,” they told Janet Jackson. “Invite Justin Timberlake along,” they told Janet Jackson. “This will give your career a massive boost,” they told Janet Jackson.
The story goes that Justin went to tear off the front of Janet’s outfit at the end of their performance, but also wound up ripping her lace bra too, exposing her breast, which was covered by a nipple shield.
Although the so-called “wardrobe malfunction” didn’t even last a full second, it had the power to bring Janet’s career to a temporary halt, and while she’s certainly enjoyed success since, we can’t help but wonder how far the talented and unique star could have gone had this scandal not defined her for so many years.
In more recent years, Janet and Justin’s Super Bowl performance has been used as an example of gender double standards in the entertainment industry.
Janet had her performance at the 2004 Grammys – which took place just seven days after the Super Bowl – unceremoniously dropped in the fallout. Justin, meanwhile, not only performed during the show but took home Album Of The Year, even cracking a joke about the Super Bowl during his acceptance speech.

Jeff Kravitz via Getty Images
In early 2018, Justin disclosed that he and Janet were on good terms despite the scandal, but sadly those “good terms” didn’t extend to an invitation to join him on stage, which is unfortunate, because that would certainly have livened up what was ultimately a fairly poorly-received performance.
Three years later, Justin publicly apologised to both Janet and his ex-girlfriend Britney Spears, stating (in a since-deleted Instagram post): “I care for and respect these women and I know I failed”.
He added: “The industry is flawed. It sets men, especially white men, up for success. It’s designed this way. As a man in a privileged position I have to be vocal about this. Because of my ignorance, I didn’t recognise it for all that it was while it was happening in my own life but I do not want to ever benefit from others being pulled down again.”
Watch the full performance here.
Politics
Wings Over Scotland | Echoes of history
The Sunday National’s front page today elicited a sigh of “So what?” from most.
We’ve already GOT a “pro-indy” majority at Holyrood and have done for the last 10 years, for all it’s been worth. But there was a paragraph in the article that at least raised an eyebrow.
Because, y’know, that doesn’t seem very likely.
The Greens trailed in a very distant 4th in the seat in 2021, despite a relatively well-known candidate (the current Presiding Officer, in fact), and since they’d likely need at least a 300% jump in their vote to stand a chance – something not suggested by any polling anywhere – we’re not quite sure how the analysis has come to that rather startling conclusion.
(It would seem to us somewhat more feasible that Reform could cannibalise the collapsing Tory and Labour votes to emerge as the main challenger, though they’d still be quite an outside bet in the unusually affluent seat.)
But something rang a bell as we read those lines. And then we remembered.
In 2016, an “analysis” from Cutbot, a company run by poisonous and creepy Scottish Greens activist James Mackenzie, had also predicted the Greens capturing the seat from the SNP. The reality proved somewhat different.
Alison Johnstone came a distant 4th again, but her 4,644 votes were enough to let Ruth Davidson sneak through and pip the SNP candidate by 610, with almost twice as many votes as the Cutbot analysis had predicted. We wonder what ever became of Alison Dickie.
The predictions (which were widely covered by a gullible Scottish media) are still worth a chuckle almost a decade later. Cutbot’s website no longer exists and its Twitter account last tweeted just three weeks after the 2016 election. So we’re not sure what it is about Edinburgh Central that appears to disrupt people’s brainwaves.
If anyone thinks the analysts have got it right this time, though, we’re happy to accept any wagers made by readers who think Lorna Slater will capture the seat in three months’ time. Just let us know how much you want to bet in the comments.
Politics
Reform councillor dramatically quits over council tax betrayal
A Reform UK councillor in Worcestershire has dramatically quit the party. Councillor David Taylor made the decision as a result of the party’s plan to raise council tax — something which the far-right party previously stood against:
Another Reform UK councillor down.
This is significant though. It shows that Reform UK promised to cut tax. He’s quit because they have raised it.
In this case it’s Worcestershire – and 10%.
Jo Monk must consider her position as leader. https://t.co/6rYz8tjKTr
— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) February 8, 2026
Gone
I walked in here today as a Reform county councillor – I won’t be leaving this studio as a Reform county councillor.
As from today, I will be an independent councillor.
He added that his constituents won’t be able to afford a “massive upheaval in council tax” and that:
What will happen is they’re going to pay more and receive less
Also:
I think we could have made decisions sooner and I think leaving it this late in the day to make cuts and to expect people who are already not doing so well… to expect them to pay more council tax, I just don’t think I can support that.
As we’ve covered, the trend of Reform councils raising council tax has happened despite the following:
Reform UK Review 2025
After winning local elections criticising councils for raising council tax, Reform UK councils plan to raise council tax.
Worcestershire applies to raise it by 10%. pic.twitter.com/6cmX1ztjdz
— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) December 26, 2025
Reform — Bankruptcy
This isn’t the end of the bad news for Worcestershire, either; the Council is also facing bankruptcy. And it isn’t the only Reform council facing this problem:
Reform UK Has Taken Two Councils to the Brink of Bankruptcyhttps://t.co/h7kNGpG2uj
— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) February 8, 2026
To be ever so slightly fair to Reform, this chaos of councils going bankrupt is a product of successive Tory governments. The austerity ideologues purposefully underfunded local areas, and predictably everything went to shit.
But to be fair to reality, meanwhile, this is happening under Reform’s watch. They need to own it.
And also, there’s zero reason to think that they will undo the underfunding problem if they form a government. In fact, it’s likely that the billionaire-backed party will only make it worse.
Featured image via BBC
Politics
Anti-corruption measures are actually anything but that
Anti-corruption is widely treated as an unambiguous public good. Investigations, prosecutions, commissions, and transparency initiatives are assumed to weaken entrenched power by exposing wrongdoing. Yet in practice, anti-corruption often functions in the opposite direction. Rather than dismantling corrupt systems, it fragments and neutralises public scrutiny. Corruption is continuously exposed in pieces but never confronted as a structure.
The defining feature of modern anti-corruption is not silence but saturation. The public is presented with a constant flow of scandals, inquiries, indictments, and document releases. This produces an atmosphere of apparent vigilance. But it also overwhelms any attempt to form a coherent picture of how power actually operates. Corruption becomes ubiquitous in discourse while remaining largely intact.
Anti-corruption: fragmentation instead of accountability
Anti-corruption operates through fragmentation. Individual cases are isolated from one another. Responsibility is narrowed to specific actors. Timelines are truncated. Structural continuity is excluded from the frame. Each scandal is treated as a self-contained deviation rather than part of a durable system of power.
This approach has predictable effects. It prevents cumulative understanding. It makes it difficult to identify persistent networks, institutional protection mechanisms, or long-term patterns of accumulation. The public is invited to react repeatedly, but never to connect.
The legal form of anti-corruption reinforces this logic. Prosecutorial standards require narrow evidentiary thresholds. Journalistic coverage mirrors these constraints. What cannot be proven in court or documented in a single file is treated as speculative, even when the broader pattern is clear. As a result, systemic corruption in practice is rendered episodic in representation.
The Epstein case and managed disclosure
The ongoing fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal illustrates how anti-corruption can generate exposure without consequence. Since Epstein’s death, a steady stream of court documents has been released, heavily redacted and carefully staged. Names appear without context. Associations are hinted at but rarely examined. The public receives information, but not an explanation.
Epstein’s wealth, protection, and extraordinary access were not accidental.
For decades, he operated at the intersection of elite financial, political, and intelligence-adjacent environments. These conditions could not have existed without some degree of institutional tolerance. Yet anti-corruption mechanisms have focused almost entirely on individual criminality rather than systemic facilitation. They have also undoubtedly ignored the very-real human cost of Epstein’s depravity – the countless victims and survivors of his horrors.
Yet, the role of financial institutions, intelligence agencies, and our own political class remains marginal to the official narrative. Instead, the case is repeatedly reopened through partial disclosures that generate periodic outrage without a comprehensive resolution for either the victims and survivors or the public.
This is not a failure of transparency. It is a controlled version of it. Redaction, selective release, and procedural delay ensure that attention is constantly renewed while structural accountability is indefinitely postponed, never to actually fruition. The scandal remains alive, but its implications remain contained in perpetuity.
Post-communist transitions and elite continuity
The same logic is visible in post-communist Eastern Europe, where anti-corruption discourse was embedded into the language of democratic transition. Romania provides a particularly clear example.
After 1989, Romania formally abandoned one-party rule but did not dismantle the elite structures that sustained it. Political authority, bureaucratic expertise, and security networks were preserved and reconfigured. Under the leadership of Ion Iliescu, the state adopted democratic forms while maintaining deep continuity in personnel and power.
Privatisation in the 1990s did not disperse economic power. It concentrated it, with state assets transferred through opaque processes to politically connected actors, many of whom had direct ties to the former regime. This was not corruption occurring within a democratic transition. It was corruption in the constitution of the transition itself.
Anti-corruption initiatives emerged after these processes had already been consolidated. Investigations focused on marginal figures or later abuses, not on the foundational redistribution of property. The most consequential decisions were rendered historical, legalised, and therefore untouchable.
By the time anti-corruption became institutionalised, the core structure of elite power had already been stabilised, and the same equally corrupt figures were making theatre, publicly denouncing practices they themselves relied upon and profited from, and staging prosecutions that carefully avoided the architects of the system. Anti-corruption became a self-purification ritual performed by elites who had already secured their positions and insulated themselves from scrutiny. Corruption was acknowledged in abstraction, while its material foundations were rendered permanent and untouchable.
Moralisation and depoliticisation
A central feature of anti-corruption discourse is moralisation. Corruption is framed as a personal failure: greed, immorality, and a lack of ethics. This framing is politically useful. It allows condemnation without a broader critique of the system, which cultivates corruption, under which it operates and thrives.
Once corruption is moralised, it is depoliticised. Questions of class power, ownership, foreign influence, and intelligence involvement are displaced by narratives of individual wrongdoing. The solution becomes better oversight, stronger laws, or cleaner politicians, rather than heralding a social and political transformation capable of dismantling the networks and interests that corruption serves.
Anti-corruption enforcement is inherently selective. Not all corruption is prosecuted. Not all actors are equally vulnerable. Decisions about whom to investigate, when, and how are political decisions, even when framed as technical or legal ones.
Selective enforcement serves an important function. It demonstrates activity while preserving stability. By prosecuting certain figures, the system signals seriousness. By protecting others, it preserves continuity. The appearance of accountability is maintained without threatening core interests.
This is particularly evident in cases involving intelligence services, large financial institutions, or strategic political actors. These domains are consistently under-investigated, despite repeated indications of involvement in corruption scandals. Anti-corruption stops where power becomes too concentrated.
Corruption as a structural condition
The assumption underlying most anti-corruption discourse is that corruption is a deviation from an otherwise functional system. In reality, corruption is often a structural condition of state formation, economic transition, and imperial power.
Where states are built through rapid privatisation, geopolitical pressure, or security-driven governance, corruption is not incidental. It is the mechanism through which authority is converted into ownership and influence into wealth.
Anti-corruption initiatives that ignore this reality cannot succeed. At best, they manage public perception. At worst, they legitimise the very systems they claim to oppose.
The function of noise within anti-corruption
Anti-corruption campaigns generate a constant churn of investigations, indictments, headlines, commissions, and moralistic discourse. This creates the appearance of transparency while overwhelming the public with fragmented scandals.
The result is paradoxical: corruption is everywhere talked about, but nowhere fully mapped; reframed as periodical episodes of outrage targeting “bad apples”, obscuring the structural depth of corruption rather than confronting it.
As a result, anti-corruption is merely a tool for the stabilisation of the system, absorbing dissent, managing outrage and converting structural problems into a sequence of oversimplified scandals that liberal democracies can contain via formal and legalistic measures.
These gestural anti-corruption measures actually reinforce the system of corruption by allowing people to experience the moral outrage and catharsis of seeing the system supposedly hold people accountable, channelling public anger into formal, bureaucratic or judicial channels and thus rendering it impotent.
But most importantly, state-mandated anti-corruption measures fail to bring justice for any of us – not least in the case of Epstein the victims and survivors of his systemic web of abuse.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Labour bigwig says New Labour led to ‘perversion & paedophilia’
Lord Maurice Glasman is the party bigwig behind the Blue Labour movement. To be honest, we’re not much of a fan of his. Credit where it’s due, though; he’s delivered what may be the greatest MSM takedown of New Labour yet:
Lord Maurice Glasman just gave the wildest political interview I’ve seen in a long time on Sky News.
“The govt and the party has to repent and reject New Labour as an alien body that took over the Labour Party. And this is where it leads: perversion of peadophilia” pic.twitter.com/7RwXXnr67n
— Nels Abbey (@nelsabbey) February 8, 2026
Please be aware that the above should read “perversion and paedophilia”, although it’s bad however you hear it.
It’s over
At this point, it seems that New Labour is finished as a viable political entity within the larger party. We say that because:
As if this wasn’t bad enough, party rivals have now branded Blairism as the political wing of international paedophilia.
There is no coming back from this.
Blue Labour
In 2020, Steve Topple described Blue Labour as follows:
a concept founded by Maurice Glasman based on socially conservative values of ‘family, faith and flag’ but more socialist economic policies. It is rooted in the values that Glasman perceived existed in the party pre-WWII.
On 6 February, Blue Labour put out the following statement:
This week exposed the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of our party. Glib arrogance, vicious court gossip and a culture of conformity. A willingness to look the other way for factional reasons, blind to how it looks to the outside world.
And for what? In the careerist scramble for a brief moment in the limelight all imagination and curiosity are crushed, and so we are left empty of ideas and empty of soul.
How far we have fallen as a party. This must be the end of New Labour.
At the same time, let’s be real; Blue Labour aren’t a viable alternative.
As activist Alan Gibbons highlighted, Glasman described Morgan McSweeney as “one of ours”. McSweeney is the worst of the worst, so if he’s one of theirs, that doesn’t say much about them.
Featured image via Sky
-
Video6 days agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech5 days agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
Politics7 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Politics3 hours agoWhy Israel is blocking foreign journalists from entering
-
Sports2 days agoJD Vance booed as Team USA enters Winter Olympics opening ceremony
-
Tech2 days agoFirst multi-coronavirus vaccine enters human testing, built on UW Medicine technology
-
NewsBeat6 days agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
Politics5 hours agoThe Health Dangers Of Browning Your Food
-
Sports1 day ago
Former Viking Enters Hall of Fame
-
Crypto World6 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Sports2 days ago
New and Huge Defender Enter Vikings’ Mock Draft Orbit
-
Business10 hours agoJulius Baer CEO calls for Swiss public register of rogue bankers to protect reputation
-
NewsBeat2 days agoSavannah Guthrie’s mother’s blood was found on porch of home, police confirm as search enters sixth day: Live
-
Business3 days agoQuiz enters administration for third time
-
Sports6 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat6 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Business2 hours agoLLP registrations cross 10,000 mark for first time in Jan
-
NewsBeat3 days agoStill time to enter Bolton News’ Best Hairdresser 2026 competition
-
NewsBeat2 days agoDriving instructor urges all learners to do 1 check before entering roundabout
-
Crypto World5 days agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report






