The stakes for Boeing and one of its most popular models are enormous. But veteran crash investigators and the airline say there’s too little data to draw a direct tie between the two at this stage of the investigation. U.S. pilot unions, who were critical of Boeing after the Indonesia accident for withholding information on design changes in the 737 Max, were also cautious.

The crash Sunday that killed all 157 people on board comes as Ethiopian has boomed over the past decade. Its passenger count has quadrupled to more than 10 million and it has grown into Africa’s largest carrier as it challenges Middle Eastern and European airlines’ dominance of the African skies and pushes further into markets like the U.S. and China.

In the past year, accidents involving passenger planes have killed hundreds — a stark contrast from 2017.

There were no deaths in commercial jet accidents in 2017, making it the safest year on record for commercial air travel. President Trump even sent out a tweet taking credit for airline safety. But more than 500 people were killed in passenger plane accidents in 2018. Airline safety groups providing the data stress that fatal crashes are nevertheless rare and commercial flights remain one of the safest forms of travel.

What about the unity government option, they asked. Don’t say that under any circumstances, [Netanyahu] said, leaping up from his chair, no one must say a word about unity. I’ve committed to not sitting with the left. Tell people that we will establish a right-wing government exactly like the previous one, which was an excellent government…

The more vigorous Netanyahu’s denial of a possible unity government, the less credible it sounded.

Blue and White does not appear likely to obtain enough support from other parties to form a coalition government. At best, with the Arab parties on board, it would be able to form a bloc preventing Netanyahu from forming the next government. Given that the prospects are non-existent for forming a coalition government with the support of the parties representing Israel’s 21% Arab minority — it has never happened nor will it — the elections could result in a political tie, a dead end with neither side constituting the majority needed for a governing coalition.

What about the next coalition? It is complicated. In a base coalition, every member is king because without him there is no coalition. This means that the price Netanyahu will have to pay as he forms his coalition is going to be high. That is, unless there is another option – the option of unity with Kahol Lavan.

Calling someone Left is meant to undermine the validity of what they say or do in today’s political climate. You don’t have to agree with the Left to agree that this is a sad state of affairs. Let’s also be honest – the only reason this kind of rhetoric is even tolerated is because no party is really banking on votes moving from one camp to the other. Real leftists vote for parties on the center-left and will not vote for parties on the Right, while the same is true about voters on the Right.

The main political casualty of the second intifada was the Israeli left, which became effectively unelectable. After all, the left had assured Israelis that a two-state offer would bring peace, but the numbing wave of terrorism immediately following Barak’s acceptance of a Palestinian state shattered the left’s credibility.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a set strategy when dealing with anyone who dares challenge his leadership: He labels them “leftists.” He did it for the first time in 1996 when he defeated then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres with the unforgettable slogan “Peres will divide Jerusalem.” Since then, all of his rivals are “leftists” — a label that conveys to his right-wing electoral base the sense of danger the “leftists” pose and makes his base run to the nearest polling station to vote for him.

Barr can decide to make much of Mueller’s report public if he deems it in the public interest. But during his confirmation hearings in January, the attorney general was cagey on how much of the report he might make public, saying he would need to have a better understanding of the regulations governing the investigation and what the special counsel report would look like to make a final decision.

Alternatively, Barr’s report to Congress could contain relatively little information about Mueller’s findings.

Barr should also understand that Congress has a role beyond impeachment. In Watergate, Congress enacted much remedial legislation in the areas of campaign finance, ethics, and providing for a special prosecutor, among other things. Now as then, Congress needs all the facts to do its job. Classified material should not be released, but for grand jury material, Barr and Mueller could petition the court for its release, which is what happened in Watergate, so that Congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

Many of the campaign teams have, at some point in recent months, sat down to discuss what exactly they should do or say when the report drops, but each has also run up against a seemingly insurmountable problem: There’s very little telling what’s in it, and no lean and overstretched campaign staff is realistically going to be able to draw up useful road maps for so many different scenarios… The result is a partial paralysis for some campaigns

Democrats endorse anti-Semitism.
Democrats compose resolution to obscure this endorsement of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitic Democrats votes for resolution.
Some Republicans don’t because they don’t want to be complicit.
Media: Republicans are the real anti-Semite!

Where’s the outrage over the 23 GOP members who voted NO on a resolution condemning bigotry today?

Oh, there’s none?

Did they get called out, raked over, ambushed in halls and relentlessly asked why not?

No? Okay. Got it.

If Democrat Leaders wanted to specifically address anti-Semitism and a member of their conference who has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments, this resolution failed in nearly every way possible. This hurried bill, that went through multiple iterations, simply did more to diminish that member’s hateful, ongoing rhetoric and further insult those who her comments have targeted.

The only thing that feels truly retro about Captain Marvel’s ’90s setting is its shallow take on feminism that we should be moving away from, not using as a crutch. It’s not just that so many of the movie’s heavy-handed Feminist Moments come across as disingenuous. Those moments also tap into an old conceit of equality as a sort of revenge fantasy, mixed with the undertone of a battle of the sexes.

But what does it say about our culture that influential people take a movie like this — and similar so-called “representations” of women, which, as a reminder, are based on fictional comic-book characters with alien superpowers — so seriously? Perhaps it’s because modern feminism has morphed into a crazed culture of unforgiving, humorless, and ultimately atomized workaholism. But hey, that’s just my theory.

Captain Marvel represents a break from those walking clichés. That’s crucial because girls and boys need more female role models onscreen. Right now, the dearth of female superheroes forces girls to learn to identify with male heroes. Boys are never forced to do the same. The result: men who run studios don’t feel they can relate to women, and thus they don’t make movies about women. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.