Four in 10 men consider themselves ‘full of testosterone’ despite many having no idea what it actually does. A poll of 2,000 men revealed 74% know it is linked to sex drive, but many were oblivious to other key functions. While 54% were unaware it is responsible for regulating mood, and 76% didn’t know it affects bone density.
Other lesser-known symptoms included muscle mass (49%), facial hair growth (47%), sperm production (38%) and voice depth (55%). And almost three in 10 (29%) feared they lacked the appropriate amount of testosterone due to issues such as erectile dysfunction.
The research was commissioned by Leger Clinic. Medical Director at the company, Dr Doug Savage, said: “Testosterone plays a more complex role in men’s health than many realise, affecting far more than sex drive and erectile dysfunction.
“Low testosterone can lead to symptoms like fatigue, low confidence, increased abdominal fat and even depression.
“Understanding testosterone’s wider role is vital, because addressing it can transform quality of life far beyond the bedroom.”
The research also found 58% think having low testosterone levels would have a negative effect on their life. Of those, 36% worry it would ruin their relationship – and 28% feel they would be “failing as a man”.
In total, 39% wish they had higher testosterone levels, with 45% believing it would boost how attractive they are to a potential partner.
While almost seven in 10 (68%) would gladly receive a free testosterone check, only 18% of people have ever discussed it with a health professional.
Dr Savage added: “It’s clear many men want to take action – whether that’s by getting checked or making lifestyle changes – and that’s a positive step.
“However, it’s evident there are still barriers, with many not feeling comfortable discussing it with loved ones or even medical professionals.
“There’s nothing to lose by doing your research and getting tested – it’s a simple move that could make a big difference to your health and confidence.”
At the start of Below Deck Mediterranean Season 10, the deck team downright sucked. But after a few recent tweaks, these yachties are now our favorite part of this series.
Nathan Gallagher is the bosun, but this is his first season working as a department head. Further complicating his obviously steep learning curve, Nathan got dealt one capable yachtie and two WTF-was-production-thinking-about deckhands. From safety issues to a lot of handholding on deck, this Temu team was a borderline chore to watch. So, kudos to Nathan for leading this team nonetheless, because many other first-time bosuns would have likely ripped up their contracts and shown themselves the exit.
But then, right as many of us were about to throw away our televisions, changes happened. And thankfully, these corrections have turned the tide. Now, we are living for the deck team on Below Deck Med.
The Below Deck Mediterranean Season 10 deck team got off to a rough start
Photo Credit: Fred Jagueneau/Bravo
At the start of Below Deck Med Season 10, Tessa Budd and Christian Trimino appeared as deckhands. To his face, Tessa was kind. But behind his back, she had nothing nice to say about Nathan, her daily scapegoat for her failings.
During her first departure, Tessa struggled with the ramp. Then, she floundered around with the yacht’s nautibuoys, followed by an aimless walk around the yacht. Later, Nathan softballed her a task. All she had to do was fill the jet skis with fuel, but she forgot, and Christian got stranded in the middle of the sea.
Meanwhile, during his first watch, Christian failed to even look at his checklist. So, when Max Salvador woke up, he did Christian’s tasks instead. Immediately after, Nathan asked Christian to blow up the water toys. But that would be too much, Christian dared to argue.
Christian also argued with Max, got someone stranded in the sea, and lacked an overall sense of urgency. But his biggest mistake came when he let a drunk guest convince him to change his mind. This guest wanted to stick his toes in the water at night, when the swells were as high as his blood alcohol level. This guest promptly fell into the ocean, but even still, Christian saw no problems with his behavior.
Nathan Gallagher was forced to make some changes
Photo Credit: Fred Jagueneau/Bravo
With all these incidents taking place in only the first handful of episodes, Captain Sandy Yawn had no choice but to lay down the law with Nathan. Either Christian or Tessa needed to go, she instructed. Her order left Nathan with a big, cliffhanger-like decision to make at the end of Episode 4. So, which yachtie did Nathan choose to fire?
Shocking many viewers, Nathan made the call to cut both of these deadweight deckhands. Thankfully, Christian understood this decision. He remained respectful in his exit meeting, and he left the boat without any further problems.
Tessa, however, remained professional in front of Captain Sandy and Nathan. But in her confessional, she cursed at Captain Sandy and then blamed her bosun for her failings, per usual.
As Christian and Tessa walked the pier, Captain Sandy reached out to yacht services, since she needed two new deckhands. She also texted several of her former crew members, but two were busy, and one failed to answer. But only a handful of beats later, this yachtie chimed in, letting Captain Sandy know that he was game to help her out. This returnee was none other than Joe Bradley from Season 9.
The refreshed deck team on Below Deck Med are now the best part of the show
Photo Credit: Fred Jagueneau/Bravo
Joe is back, but he only has two hands (that we know of), so Captain Sandy placed Victoria SanJuan on deck for a temporary fix. Sure, she’s a stew, but V has worked on deck before. Right out of the gate, V nailed every assignment. She performed so well that Captain Sandy just assigned her to the deck team in a full-time capacity, and will soon bring in a new steward to take over her interior gig.
However, V’s late boyfriend, Bon, drowned. This tragic incident made V shy away from exterior roles. Knowing this while watching V shine as she heals on deck has been heartwarming. Viewers don’t often get warm fuzzies from this series, so this storyline of resilience and growth is quickly making this deck team our favorite aspect of Below Deck Med Season 10.
The way Nathan, Max, and Joe are all embracing, encouraging, and supporting V is also worth noting. These four are truly presenting as a non-toxic, non-mysogisnistic family. And all of their personalities are such a vibe, especially when combined.
Meanwhile, Joe and Nathan shared such a fun bromance in Season 9. When these two gigglers embraced on the dock this season, it was like a ray of light finally shone down from the heavens onto the deck team. And from everything Joe recently teased to us, he and Max will also join chaotic forces, which further makes the deck team the one to watch this season.
Most people understand that TV show pilots are often not the best episodes in any series. The reason is simple: Everyone is still trying to find their feet and feel out the dynamic of the show, the cast chemistry, the writing, etc. Essentially, a pilot is a proof of concept for the network or streaming service, showcasing the potential of a program — not its final form. There have been times, though, when a pilot doesn’t go the way anyone expects it to materialize. Rather than cancel the series order after the pilot, the creators and network acknowledge that something is off and reshoot it before the episode hits the airwaves.
Surprisingly, some of the biggest shows of all time, such as “The Big Bang Theory” and “Game of Thrones,” featured much different original pilots than what fans saw on screen for the first time. The success of the respective series reaffirms that everyone did the right thing in redoing the pilot. Yet, as fans, there’s a morbid curiosity to find out what could have been. Even though there’s a strong possibility that everyone would have detested the original pilot, you still want to find out how different some of your favorite TV shows could have turned out.
Having said that, let’s head back in time and check out 10 TV show pilots that were completely reshot before airing. In a few of these cases, if you’re a good-enough sleuth, you might be able to find these episodes online.
The Big Bang Theory
CBS
Everyone recognizes Penny (Kaley Cuoco) as one of the most important and beloved characters in “The Big Bang Theory,” but she wasn’t even a part of the original pilot. In that version of the show, Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) and Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki) meet Katie, played by Amanda Walsh. Yet, Katie isn’t as nice to the guys as Penny, so much so that the test audience reacted negatively toward the character and how she treated Sheldon and Leonard. “That’s why we rewrote Katie to become Penny and made her much more charmed by the guys and kind to them, as opposed to a woman who would take advantage of them,” the show’s co-creator Chuck Lorre told Entertainment Weekly in 2022.
That wasn’t all, though. Sheldon’s personality deviates from what fans are familiar with, having him be more sexual, while he also has a former flame named Gilda (Iris Bahr) who crushes hard on Leonard. Oh, and fan favorites Raj Koothrappali (Kunal Nayyar) and Howard Wolowitz (Simon Helberg)? They’re nowhere to be found here.
Lorre admitted that CBS asked the co-creators to only recast Katie, but he understood there was a bigger issue he and Bill Prady rectified for the second pilot. “Our script didn’t fully realize what our possibilities were,” Lorre said. “I told Bill, ‘Let’s add more of these brilliant misbegotten characters, and let’s lose the plot entirely. Let’s just spend a half hour diving into the lives of these brilliant misfit characters.'”
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
20th Television
It’s fair to say that the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” pilot, “Welcome to the Hellmouth,” is one of the better ones, as it explodes out of the blocks and sets the tone for what’s to come. However, it wasn’t what was originally shot when creator Joss Whedon pitched the show known only then as “Slayer” to The WB.
According to the biography “Joss Whedon: Geek King of the Universe” by Amy Pascale, Whedon produced a compact 25-minute pilot. While several storyline elements from what would eventually be broadcast stay intact here, a few of the important characters that appear in the aired pilot are missing, including David Boreanaz’s Angel (one of the best characters in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) and Kristine Sutherland’s Joyce Summers. In addition, there are different people playing Principal Flutie and Willow Rosenberg: Stephen Tobolowsky and Riff Regan, respectively.
The WB wasn’t impressed with the pilot, nor was Whedon who vowed to never release the pilot publicly (it found its way onto the Internet, though, since that’s a law unto itself). Initially, the network passed on commissioning the series, but some of the execs were intrigued by the premise and thought it showed promise. So, when “Savannah” was axed, The WB invited Whedon to have another stab at “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” to fill the slot. Whedon tweaked and expanded upon elements of the pilot, which included recasting Tobolowsky and Regan with Ken Lerner and Alyson Hannigan, and the rest is TV history.
Family Guy
Fox
Much like “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy” is one of those rare animated shows that seems determined to outlast humanity and maybe the entire universe. Realistically, no one expects the series to look or be the same as it was when it aired in the late ’90s, but even the original pilot isn’t the same as the first episode, “Death Has a Shadow,” which debuted in January 1999.
Animator Robert Paulson, who worked on the show, uploaded the 1998 pilot of “Family Guy” to his website. What’s instantly noticeable here is the animation style, which looks far less polished than the final effort that appeared on TV. In addition, Lois Griffin has blonde hair instead of the usual red locks she boasts on the show. Another noticeable difference in the unaired pilot is how Chris Griffin is voiced by “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, who does a lot of voices on the show, but is voiced by Seth Green in the actual series.
As it turns out, MacFarlane did a bulk of the work on this pilot. “[Fox] gave me about $50,000 for a production budget, and the idea was that I animate this thing by myself,” he told The New York Times in 2004. ”I spent about six months with no sleep and no life, just drawing like crazy in my kitchen and doing this pilot. About six months later I handed it in, about 40 pounds lighter, and they were laughing, and they liked it enough to order 13.”
Three’s Company
ABC
“Three’s Company” invited viewers to come and knock on the door. What awaited them wasn’t kisses, but the madcap mishaps of Jack Tripper (John Ritter), Janet Wood (Joyce DeWitt), and Chrissy Snow (Suzanne Somers). The terrific trio is the secret sauce of the late ’70s/early ’80s sitcom, and it was never the same following Somers’ departure after the fifth season. It culminated in one of those situations where a TV show replaces a departing star with a new character, and the results prove to be mixed. Here’s the funny part, though: This beloved version of the series only originated on the third pilot!
The first-ever unaired pilot featured Ritter. However, his name is David Bell and he works in Hollywood in this iteration. The premise stays the same — albeit a bit raunchier than the classic “Three’s Company” show that everyone knows and loves — as David lives with two women, who are named Jenny and Samantha here. However, the roles are played by Valerie Curtin and Susanne Zenor — not DeWitt and Somers. This pilot didn’t land well with the network execs, so work commenced on another version of the show.
Another pilot of “Three’s Company” aired on TV, containing the characters of Jack, Janet, and Chrissy. However, in this version, Chrissy is played by Susan Lanier. Ultimately, the execs weren’t convinced by Lanier’s performance as Chrissy, so the role was recast with Somers. From there, everything clicked, and the magic happened.
Two and a Half Men
CBS
The undisputed stars of “Two and a Half Men” remain Charlie (Charlie Sheen), Alan (Jon Cryer), and Jake Harper (Angus T. Jones). Their comedic chemistry is something that money can’t buy — though it does help when you’re paid millions of dollars per episode — so this becomes the cornerstone of the sitcom. Make no mistake, another important character in the show is Evelyn Harper (Holland Taylor), Charlie and Alan’s narcissistic and manipulative mother. She appears in many episodes of the series, including the pilot.
However, in the original pilot, titled “Most Chicks Won’t Eat Veal” (a dirty joke from the episode), Blythe Danner plays Evelyn. Despite Danner being an award-winning performer and an experienced sitcom actor in her own right, the show parted ways with her after the pilot.
So, what was the issue here? According to what “Two and a Half Men” co-creator Chuck Lorre told Orlando Sentinel, Evelyn “wasn’t a really good fit for her,” hence the pilot being reshot with Taylor in the role. From the footage that’s circulated of Danner as Evelyn, she plays the character much more differently than Taylor. While it isn’t to say that her performance is better or worse than Taylor’s, it does feel as if Taylor’s Evelyn fits in better with Charlie, Alan, and Jake than Danner’s ever did.
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers
Fox
“Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” established itself as a unique series, using stock footage from the Japanese TV show “Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger” then interspersing this in between the new filmed footage. However, this doesn’t mean the pilot, “Day of the Dumpster,” was easily produced. Quite the contrary, it took three rounds of morphin’ time before airing in the version that fans are familiar with now.
The pilot’s co-writer Tony Oliver revealed the arduous process at the 2007 Power Morphicon. Oliver explained how there’s a different Yellow Ranger actor in this pilot, with Audri Dubois playing Trini. In addition to this, the Rangers hang out at a bowling alley, not their regular hangout spot: The Gym and Juice Bar. (This episode eventually aired as the special “Power Rangers: The Lost Episode” in 1999.) Fox Kids liked what it saw but urged the violence to be toned down. A second pilot went into production — this time replacing Dubois with Thuy Trang — however, it was still seen as too violent for kids, so it underwent a third reshoot.
Years later, on the documentary series “Hollywood Demons” (via Entertainment Weekly), Dubois opened up about shooting the pilot, stating it wasn’t a pleasant working experience. “When we’re shooting the pilot, we’re out in the desert — it’s got to be 110 degrees — and someone has heat stroke,” Dubois said. “It was one of the bad guys in a wet suit with a rubber mask over their head with pinholes for the eyes and mouth. He’s flopping around like a fish.”
Star Trek
Paramount
If at first you don’t succeed, save the footage because it may become iconic later on. That’s exactly what happened with the “Star Trek” pilot episode, “The Cage.” The show introduces the U.S.S. Enterprise under the command of Captain Christopher Pike (Jeffrey Hunter). Pike’s crew includes Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the first officer known only as Number One (Majel Barrett). In the episode, Pike is kidnapped by the Talosians, but he needs to figure out what the species wants from him and the Enterprise crew.
According to StarTrek.com, NBC didn’t accept the pilot, but it allowed “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry to have another shot at it and take the network’s notes into consideration. Some of the non-negotiables included that Roddenberry needed to pick between keeping Spock or Number One, so the creator chose to keep Spock for the next iteration of the pilot that saw the Enterprise led by Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) after Hunter declined to do the series.
Parts of the footage from “The Cage” was used in the episode “The Menagerie,” while “The Cage” was eventually released on home video in 1986. In terms of the adventures of Captain Pike and his Enterprise crew, this became the basis of the series “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds.” It goes to show that Roddenberry’s instincts weren’t wrong. Instead, much like the show, he was ahead of his time.
Charmed
The WB
The bewitching supernatural drama “Charmed,” well, charmed everyone. Even though there was a major cast shake-up with Shannen Doherty’s departure after the third season, viewers fondly remember the original Charmed Ones: Prue (Doherty), Piper (Holly Marie Combs), and Phoebe Halliwell (Alyssa Milano). Before the show’s debut episode, “Something Wicca This Way Comes,” hit the airwaves in 1998, there was another pilot filmed with different actors in certain roles.
In the original pilot, Chris Boyd plays police inspector Andy Trudeau — yes, it’s impossible to imagine anyone else but Ted King in this role, but it’s true. Another major change is the absence of Milano as Phoebe. In this pilot, Lori Rom plays the part of the popular Halliwell sister.
Chatting on “The Women of Charmed,” Doherty discussed what the switch from Rom to Milano brought to the series. “We shot the pilot with a different girl playing Phoebe, Lori Rom, who I would say is a great actress and whatever her personal reasons were for not wanting to continue, I understand,” Doherty said. “And it’s really interesting because Alyssa and Lori are so completely different and the show is completely different because of the dynamic that Alyssa brings into it.”
Gilmore Girls
Warner Bros. Television
“Gilmore Girls” is one of those shows that hits right in the feels. It’s a comfort watch, as everything falls into place and complements other elements of the series. So, imagine the surprise in finding out the original pilot for the show could be from an alternate universe’s version of the show, with different actors playing fan-favorite roles. Shocking, right?
It’s impossible to imagine anyone else but Melissa McCarthy as Sookie St. James or Jared Padalecki as Dean Forester. Yet, both of these roles featured other actors in the seminal parts: Nathan Wetherington as Dean and Alex Borstein as Sookie. McCarthy secured the gig because Borstein couldn’t continue the part, while Wetherington was recast by Padalecki after the lackluster pilot.
At the time, Borstein was a cast member on “MADtv” and was led to believe she would be able to do both roles. According to Borstein’s comments to BuzzFeed in 2013, “Gilmore Girls” creator Amy Sherman-Palladino agreed to shoot around Borstein’s schedule, and a “MADtv” producer told Borstein it was unlikely to be an issue. “What I didn’t know was the emails behind my back were, like, ‘Absolutely not,'” Borstein said. “I think it was a Fox-WB thing. So it kind of blew up. Very disappointing. But now I feel — I’m not mystical or anything.”
Game of Thrones
HBO
When discussing the best HBO series of all time, no one can ignore “Game of Thrones.” From the first episode, “Winter Is Coming,” the show grabs a hold of the audience and refuses to let go. Yet, this monumental episode had to be reshot. According to Yahoo, approximately 90% of the original pilot was entirely scrapped. Some of the omissions included a George R. R. Martin cameo that’s been relegated to the archives as punishment for him not finishing the novel series (just kidding).
This version of “Game of Thrones” also features different actors in popular roles. Khaleesi herself, Daenerys Targaryen, is played by Tamzin Merchant, whom viewers should recognize as Catherine Howard from “The Tudors.” Also, Jennifer Ehle, who can be seen on “Lioness” and “1923,” is the actor portraying Catelyn Stark. Reportedly, it’s not a very good pilot at all, with the general consensus being the series wouldn’t have been what it is had it aired.
“Game of Thrones” co-showrunner David Benioff called the failed pilot a major learning moment for him and D. B. Weiss. Speaking to Variety in 2015, Benioff pointed to a big question mark their trusted friends had after watching the episode. “At the very end of the pilot, Jaime Lannister pushes Bran out the window,” Benioff said. “Jaime is lying with his sister, Cersei, and none of [our friends] realized that Jaime and Cersei were brother and sister, which is a major, major plot point that we had somehow failed to establish.”
Elon Musk’s future at Tesla could be in the balance on Thursday when shareholders vote on whether to approve his record-shattering $1 trillion pay package.
The controversial proposal, which is scheduled to be considered at Tesla’s annual meeting in Texas, would hand Musk an unprecedented payout tied to a series of performance benchmarks.
Critics – including key proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis and even Pope Leo XIV – argue the proposed salary is excessive. Meanwhile, Tesla chairwoman Robyn Denholm and Musk himself have warned that he could leave the company entirely if shareholders reject the proposal.
“Tesla may lose his time, talent and vision, which have been essential to delivering extraordinary shareholder returns,” Denholm said in a recent letter posted on X.
Tesla shareholders will vote on a nearly $1 trillion pay package for Musk. REUTERS
Musk has framed the vote in near-apocalyptic terms – declaring in an Oct. 29 X post that “control of Tesla could affect the future of civilization.”
The billionaire has argued that he needs greater voting control offered by the stock grants in order to effectively guide Tesla’s future plans for artificial intelligence, which include the robots and full self-driving technology. Musk would control nearly 29% of voting shares if he hits all targets.
The jaw-dropping pay package, unveiled in a September proxy filing, was crafted by Tesla’s board after a Delaware judge struck down a previous $56 billion compensation plan for Musk. The judge ruled that the previous package, which was approved in 2018, was excessive and riddled with conflicts of interest.
Under the latest proposal, one tranche of Musk’s pay would be awarded if Tesla hits a $2 trillion valuation and delivers 20 million vehicles. Another would kick in if Tesla is valued at $3 trillion and delivers 1 million of its “Optimus” humanoid robots.
The new pay package drew a major rebuke this week from Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which became the largest Tesla stakeholder to say it opposed the plan.
Tesla’s board has warned Elon Musk could leave if the package is rejected. REUTERS
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” stated Norges Bank Investment Management, which oversees the sovereign wealth fund.
Tesla shares were down nearly 5% in Tuesday’s trading.
“What does that mean, and what’s that about?” the pontiff continued. “If that is the only thing that has any value any more, then we are in big trouble.”
ISS and Glass Lewis have also recommended that shareholders say no, asserting that the pay is excessive and could dilute the holdings of other investors.
A person sits in a Tesla Cybercab outside the Nasdaq Market site in New York City, U.S., October 27, 2025. REUTERS
Tesla’s largest individual investors, including BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, have yet to reveal how they plan to vote.
Despite the lingering uncertainty, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said he expects shareholders to give a “bright green light” to the plan.
“With the AI Revolution this is a crucial time for Tesla ahead with autonomous and robotics front and center,” Ives said in a note to clients on Monday.
“We expect shareholders to show overwhelming support for Musk and the xAI stake further turning Tesla into an AI juggernaut with the autonomous and robotics future on the horizon.”
The white-nationalist influencer made it on “The Tucker Carlson Show,” the nation’s foremost vehicle for laundering noxious ideas into the conservative mainstream.
Fuentes is a Holocaust denier and self-avowed racist whose goal is to remake the right in his image.
Tucker Carlson hosted Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes on his podcast. The Tucker Carlson Show
Carlson, who prides himself on asking the supposedly telling questions when it comes to promoting any number of conspiracy theories, couldn’t really bring himself to ask any of Fuentes.
What Stephen A. Smith is to sports talk, Tucker Carlson is to obsessive anti-Zionism.
There is almost no anti-Jewish theme — dual loyalty, usury, sinister plotting — that he doesn’t elevate, although he occasionally stipulates that he likes Israel and has no interest in talking about it.
When Carlson interviewed Ted Cruz before President Trump launched his strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites earlier this year, he bristled with hostility for the hawkish Republican senator from Texas.
When Cruz noted that Carlson seemed fixated on Israel, the podcaster retreated to his favorite dodge that he was “just asking questions.”
Obviously, though, if your questions all tend toward one set of insinuations — casting aspersions on one country and suspicion on one group of people — you aren’t engaged in genuine inquiry but pursuing an agenda while trying to maintain a modicum of plausible deniability.
A while ago, Carlson welcomed on his podcast a crank “historian” with revisionist views on World War II, Darryl Cooper, and enthusiastically endorsed him as “the most important historian in the United States” (move over, Gordon Wood, Niall Ferguson, and Allen Guelzo, among others).
While Carlson served as his caddy, Cooper explained that Winston Churchill was “the chief villain” of World War II, while Hitler “didn’t want to fight.”
According to Cooper, the Holocaust was just a product of inept military planning.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
With Fuentes, Carlson was like a broadcast morning show host fluffing a celebrity out on a publicity tour for his or her latest movie — except the interview subject, in this case, was a poisonous toad.
Carlson lobbed softballs while Fuentes inveighed against “organized Jewry” and expressed admiration for Josef Stalin.
It was such a dismal performance that it created an instant backlash and alarm that an ancient hatred — once thought vanquished — has gotten notable footing on the right.
His vision of a new “golden age” for America doesn’t involve kicking Israel to the curb or marginalizing the Jews, and never will.
Yet Carlson and his allies — most prominently the conspiracy-mongering podcaster Candace Owens — are playing a long game to make anti-Zionism and hostility to Judaism part of right-wing orthodoxy.
If they succeed, they will poison conservatism, morally and electorally.
They will make it turn its back on a significant element of the Western heritage, and on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who admired ancient Israel for its contributions of monotheism and the idea of the law.
For a long time, the fever swamp on the right was limited to mimeographed newsletters or lurid email chains.
No more.
We have returned to a version of the 1930s, when such figures as Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh had huge megaphones and celebrity they used to assail the alleged malign influence of the Jews.
Just because none of this is visible on broadcast news or — for the most part — among elected politicians doesn’t mean it isn’t insidious and gaining traction.
Tucker Carlson knows what he’s doing, and he’s made it clear that Nick Fuentes is his ideological compatriot and friend.
Over recent days, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) stock hit a new all-time high. In fact, Amazon’s long-term performance has been nothing short of spectacular. Its share price gain means that $1 invested in Amazon when it listed in 1997 is now worth over $2,800.
Sure, there are still no dividends. With that sort of price gain, though, I doubt many shareholders are bothered.
In fact, they may well prefer Amazon to keep doing what it has been doing with its spare cash: investing it in further business growth, rather than using it to fund dividends.
Having recently hit an all-time high, it might seem hard to imagine that Amazon stock is even now a potential bargain. But I think it may be.
The lens matters
That depends in part on what approach one takes to investing.
From a short-term perspective, the price-to-earnings ratio of 36 may not seem cheap. (Then again, in the current market, it does not seem outrageously high either for a high-growth company with some massive competitive advantages).
Over the long term, I think Amazon could yet go from strength to strength.
Building on its strengths
Amazon has been very innovative over many years. By experimenting with new businesses, it has been able to expand its existing competitive advantage.
It has also not been afraid to pull the rug from ventures that it decides are less promising than hoped. I see that as a sign of confident and decisive management.
So its online retail and marketplace has grown bigger and picked up lots of extra elements along the way, from bricks-and-mortar shops to its own cargo airline.
That alone could mean that the historic heartland of Amazon’s business can grow strongly over the long term. Economies of scale and its strong industry position could help it grow profits faster than revenues.
Meanwhile, the bigger story from a long-term perspective may be about AWS (the old Amazon Web Services).
AI is rocket fuel for an already brilliant business
Before the AI gold rush, AWS was already a successful, high-growth business. That has not changed and its server hosting business remains massive.
But AI demand has taken that to a whole new level.
How big?
Put it this way – in the third quarter, Amazon’s operating income was $17.4bn. Of that, AWS was responsible for $11.4bn. That means that around two-thirds of Amazon’s total operating income in its most recent quarter came from AWS alone.
Excitement about the growth potential for AWS explains why the Amazon share price hit an all-time high. AWS sales were up by a fifth year on year.
Can Amazon’s AI-fuelled growth last?
The medium- to long-term demand picture for AI-related hosting remains unclear. I also see a risk competitors may try to win market share by competing on price, potentially eating into AWS’ profitability.
Meanwhile, Amazon’s retail business faces ongoing risks from US tariff uncertainty.
But from a long-term perspective, given its competitive advantages including client base and proven model, I think Amazon’s current share price could come to be seen as a bargain. I see it as a share that investors with a multi-year timeframe should consider.
U.S. intelligence officials said the threats appeared to originate from Russian email domains, though it was not clear whether the threats originated with Russia.
Intelligence officials had previously said they were “observing foreign adversaries, particularly Russia, conducting additional influence operations intended to undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stoke divisions among Americans.”
Bomb threats are one way to destabilize democracy and make people fearful of showing up to vote.
PoliticusUSA’s news and opinions are 100% independent. Support us by becoming a subscriber.
They have also become more prevalent in Donald Trump’s America, when Putin knows that he has total freedom to meddle in US elections, because Trump has gutted American defenses against foreign election interference, so the door is wide open.
The difference is that the states are stepping up to fill the void and keep America’s elections safe and secure.
With high-profile elections in New York City, New Jersey, Virginia, and California, it is not surprising that those who wish to undermine US democracy, adversaries both potentially foreign and domestic, are up to their now old tricks in 2025.
Just like in 2024, bomb threats were emailed to polling places.
This time, the target was northern New Jersey, but the state was ready for the threats.
Desktop Mac users will have to wait until 2026 for updates, with M5 versions of the Mac mini and Mac Studio still rumored to be months away from release.
Mac Studio
Apple’s initial rollout of the M5 Apple Silicon lineup has started, but so far it has only reached one model of Mac. For Apple’s desktop Mac selection, there will be a few months to wait before seeing any other model refreshes.
In Tuesday’s report about the low-cost MacBook rumor, Mark Gurman for Bloomberg writes that there will be multiple models arriving in early 2026. That roadmap includes a refresh of the Mac mini line to include M5 and M5 Pro variants.
A decade after former Starbucks then-CEO Howard Schultz said China had the potential to become the U.S. coffee chain’s biggest market, the company is dramatically changing its approach there, selling a majority stake in its China business to an outside partner analysts say is better equipped to help the brand thrive.
The confluence of several factors have made it much harder for Seattle-based Starbucks to pursue its China strategy as initially planned: A loss of business momentum during the COVID pandemic, during which stores were closed for months on end; the emergence of fierce homegrown rivals, especially Luckin Coffee; and weakness in its home market. So now, Starbucks, whose first café in China was opened in 1999, is selling a 60% stake in its retail operations there to Hong Kong-based investment firm Boyu Capital in a deal worth about $4 billion.
Boyu promises be instrumental in helping Starbucks open stores in cities beyond Shanghai, Beijing and China’s other megalopolises, while keeping costs in check. “Boyu’s deep local knowledge and expertise will help accelerate our growth in China, especially as we expand into smaller cities and new regions,” Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol said in a statement announcing the deal on Monday.
Starbucks currently has 8,000 stores in China, and Niccol said that could grow to 20,000 under the new arrangement. The deal is also meant to better equip the brand to compete with Luckin, a Chinese chain with more than 20,000 franchise locations that has lured its U.S. rival into price wars. Though Starbucks was early to the China coffee shop market, its market share there had plunged to 14% by last year, from 34% in 2019, Reuters reported (citing data from Euromonitor International).
The sheer size of the Chinese market has long been tantalizing to Western consumer brands like Starbucks. At the same time, China has bedeviled many of them. Ralph Lauren, now soaring in China, had to essentially exit China in the 2010, and then re-enter it with spruced-up stores. Nike had a few false starts in China too before finding its footing a decade ago, but now must contend with weak consumer sentiment and falling sales.
Starbucks’ move to tap outside investors with deep experience in China has a couple of notable precedents in the quick-service restaurant sector. In 2017, McDonald’s sold 80% of its China and Hong Kong operations to investors including the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CITIC Ltd. for $2.1 billion. And KFC China is part of Yum China, an entity spun out in 2016 from Yum Holdings to be nimbler in taking on the China market.
Though Starbucks will continue to earn revenue in China from its 40% share of profits and royalty fees, the deal represents a big pivot away from the market, and a signal that it has given up on the bonanza it once hoped to reap there. Only eight years ago, Starbucks was buying out its joint venture partners in some parts of China.
The Boyu deal should allow Starbucks to concentrate on its turnaround stateside, say some analysts. “Partnering in China absolves management of some operational complexity and geopolitical exposure while freeing resources to focus on a nascent turn in the North American business,” said John Zolidis, president and founder of Quo Vadis Capital.
Starbucks closed some 550 North American stores last quarter as part of its overhaul of the company, leaving it with about 17,000 locations. And last week, the company reported that U.S. same-store sales last quarter were flat, breaking a six-quarter streak of declines of the metric, which strips out the impact of newly opened or closed stores.
Niccol, who was appointed in August of last year after six years as CEO of Chipotle, told investors last week that the plan is working. “It’s clear that our turnaround is taking hold,” he said.
There was a time when smart shopping referred to shoppers who sought out the best bargains through things like coupons and sales, or those who focused on the value of products and services, making the most of their dollar. Today, smart shopping is more involved, as consumers have a few more techniques and tools at their disposal.
Many of these are tied to the different payment options now available to shoppers, ranging from credit cards to prepaid vouchers. These payment options each offer different features and benefits, depending on the context in which they’re used. Here we’ll explore these benefits and situations, and how they impact shoppers of all types—whether they’re luxury buyers or bargain hunters.
Credit Cards
When it comes to high-ticket purchases, credit cards have a range of benefits that make them a sensible payment option for shoppers. Credit cards provide more protection against fraudulent spending than other payment options. They’re protected through the use of a PIN, EMV chips that create a one-time code for each purchase, and ongoing monitoring for suspicious activities. Additionally, for shoppers, it’s easier to dispute fraudulent purchases, making it less likely to harm the shopper’s finances. Credit cards also offer the advantage of points or rewards for purchases made, allowing shoppers to apply them to future purchases, giving them greater value from every dollar spent.
Charge Cards
Charge cards are another practical option for high-ticket purchases because these cards have no preset spending limit. As a result, shoppers can spend with fewer restrictions and without concern that their payment won’t be accepted. Like credit cards, some charge cards offer the benefit of points and rewards, and they also offer zero interest on purchases, giving them even more useful features for high-end purchasers.
Mobile Wallets
For everyday, in-person, and online purchases, mobile wallets are an exceptionally convenient payment option for shoppers. Mobile wallets, such as Google Pay, Apple Pay, and Samsung Pay, allow their users to hold different cards in a digital platform or app, making payment a seamless, contactless experience. Since mobile wallets are used via mobile devices, they offer an appealing layer of security—using biometrics to unlock a phone to make a payment—and, of course, a high level of convenience.
Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL)
Mobile wallets aren’t the only new payment method gaining traction as digital payments become more common; Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) options are too. BNPL is rapidly growing for e-commerce consumers because it allows them to pay for products in instalments, similar to traditional financing. Many BNPL options are interest-free and can be applied to purchases of all sizes and across product categories—including clothing, tech, and housewares. It provides a great deal of flexibility for shoppers, allowing them to optimise their cash flow without paying the additional fees (if they pay their balance on time) they’d incur with other payment methods like credit cards. The flexibility has led to rapid growth, with the Irish BNPL market anticipated to reach $2.21 billion by 2030.
Prepaid Vouchers
When it comes to online entertainment and subscription services, prepaid vouchers are a common payment option, and one that consumers adopt for a variety of reasons. One key appeal is that payment vouchers have predetermined amounts for users, making it easy to stick to a budget while still enjoying entertainment like online gaming and gambling. It allows users to stay in the moment of gameplay without worrying about exceeding their budget during the thrill of the game.
Another reason shoppers use this payment method is that it offers more security and anonymity. Instead of having to share sensitive financial and personal information, prepaid vouchers allow consumers to use account information independent from their personal banking or credit information, giving them more peace of mind. For those who want to have more digital privacy, this enables them to avoid leaving a personal digital footprint while still accessing online entertainment, subscriptions, and other purchase options. Prepaid vouchers appear as payment options on casinos.com, streaming services, e-commerce stores, and even on bill payment platforms.
Cross-Currency and Crypto Payment Considerations
Today’s shoppers have a broad reach when shopping online, including sourcing products and services across borders, meaning that cross-currency payment options are seeing growing consumer demand. Multi-currency cards help navigate currency conversions while keeping exchange fees to a minimum. This allows consumers to make purchases with greater ease and fewer complications, and to prioritise responsible wealth management habits, allowing them to have more control over their spending and financial health. Often, multi-currency cards cater to luxury shoppers and offer incentives like concierge support and travel perks that complement the international lifestyle of global buyers.
Luxury buyers are increasingly adopting an alternative payment method: cryptocurrencies. Brands like Gucci, Balenciaga, Ferrari, and more are accepting this form of payment because of the appeal it has among their target customers. Crypto payments offer instant, borderless transactions and increase privacy and security for spenders. These qualities make it appealing for high-value purchases like fine art and real estate by reducing barriers to purchases and allowing anonymity and security. Of course, crypto isn’t without concerns, even among the most tech-savvy luxury shoppers. There are risk management concerns related more to wealth management and crypto’s volatile nature than purchases, though options like stablecoins (cryptocurrencies tied to fiat money like the US dollar) help mitigate these concerns.
Seamless Checkout: The New Luxury Standard
Each payment method explored here shares a common thread: the ability to enjoy a seamless checkout process. From credit to crypto payments, consumers have one-click options that cater to their preferences—whether that’s to earn more points for future shopping experiences, prioritise privacy and security, or stay on budget. The quality of a checkout process is as essential to a luxury purchase as the product or brand itself—in other words, seamless payment flexibility is a new, non-negotiable luxury standard.
