In a world that frames people with anxiety as ‘weak,’ Gina Rodriguez shoves back.

“Jane the Virgin” star Gina Rodriguez recently shared a short but powerful video on Instagram.

The Golden Globe-winning actress opened up about her history with anxiety in the caption of her video contribution to Norwegian photographer Anton Soggiu’s “Ten Second Portraits” project.

It’s always a bit surprising to learn that people who spend their lives in front of cameras and audiences have anxiety.

But it really shouldn’t be.

Anxiety disorders are extremely common, with an estimated 40 million U.S. adults experiencing them in some form or another. For many people, anxiety can be what’s known as an “invisible illness.” In other words, someone might be high-functioning in their professional and social lives and not ever look or act “sick” or show visible signs of an anxiety disorder.

In the 10-second clip Rodriguez shared, most of us would not be able to tell by looking at it that she was feeling nervous she bites her lip a bit, though mostly she’s smiling. But to her, the anxiety is obvious.

“Watching this clip, I could see how anxious I was, but I empathize with myself,” she wrote in the caption.

Rodriguez snaps a few pictures with fans at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival. Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images.

There’s an important piece of advice hidden in Rodriguez’s message about thriving in the face of challenges.

“I wanted to protect her and tell her it’s ok to be anxious, there is nothing different or strange about having anxiety and I will prevail,” Rodriguez explained of watching herself in the video.

“I like watching this video,” she wrote.It makes me uncomfortable but there is a freedom I feel maybe even an acceptance. This is me.”

Rodriguez and her “Jane the Virgin” co-star Jamie Camil appear on a panel at the 2017 Vulture Festival. Photo by Thos Robinson/Getty Images for Vulture Festival.

Different people cope with challenges in different ways, especially when it comes to the majorly stigmatized world of mental health. For Rodriguez, that means acknowledging and accepting that this is part of who she is and in a world that paints people with anxiety, depression, or other mental illnesses as being “weak,” it can be the strongest move of all.

Read more:

At 14, he was told he’d die by 40. Now he helps nourish other people’s lives.

Michael Malcolm’s doctor said he wouldn’t live to 40.

He was 14 years old at the time.

“When you’re a kid and someone tells you you’re gonna die before you’re halfway through your life, it’s … I mean, there’s nothing more dramatic than that,” he recalled years later while still choking back the tears.

Malcolm’s blood sugar and cholesterol were dangerously through the roof. It would take more than just a one-off diet to fix the problems, and if he waited any longer to act, it could already be too late.

Malcolm had to find a way to change his life for good and along the way, he discovered his true passion, too. Watch his story below:

He was told he would only live until he was 40. So he took action.

Posted by Upworthy on Monday, May 22, 2017

Malcolm’s newfound love for nutrition saved his life. And now it’s helping him inspire others, too.

Sure, he may have felt OK before the doctor brought attention to his health numbers. But thanks to that preventive screening, Malcolm was able to take control of his life before he got worse.

He started getting more physical activity and learned how to improve his eating habits in ways that were easy and enjoyable. He ultimately felt even better than he did before, and he didn’t have to suffer through any awful health disaster to get there.

With a new lease on life, Malcolm began to share his passion. He taught his family how to prepare wholesome meals, which was as good for him as it was for them.

He also discovered an entrepreneurial streak within himself, investing time in health-conscious social projects ranging from sustainable agriculture for low-income families to aquaponic farming. He even helped to launch a healthy home-cooked meal service self-described as “Uber for personal chefs” through his university’s start-up incubator. And now that his body’s getting the right balance of nutrients, he’s coming up with new ideas every day.

That’s the best thing about healthy habits like the ones that Malcolm learned.

They don’t just help prevent disease; they brighten up your brain, and your life.

Studies have shown that malnutrition can lead to poor decision-making. Whether it’s the stress of poverty or the mental strain of having to plan for a temporary diet, it can take up so much brain power that it directly affects your ability to function in other ways, too. It makes it that much harder to actually get the nourishment you need to operate to the best of your abilities.

So how can you avoid that downward spiral? You do what Malcolm did: Identify the issue before it becomes a problem and find a way to turn those healthy habits into a seamless, automatic part of your life. It’s the only way to free up your mind to focus on the things that really matter.

Now the only contagion that Malcolm has to worry about is his own infectious energy.

Good blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol levels have all been to shown to have direct chemical impacts on our happiness as well as our physical well-being. Without preventive screening, Malcolm wouldn’t be where he is today and with it, well, who knows where else the future might take him?

Learn more about how to take control of your health at

Read more:

Kathy Griffin’s bloody Trump head stunt isn’t going over well

Image: Cordeiro/REX/Shutterstock

Republicans and Democrats agree: Kathy Griffin did something disgusting.

Griffin who you might know from, um, Suddenly Susan and reality shows I guess? posed in a blue dress with the fake, decapitated head of Donald Trump in a photo.

It’s gross. Seriously, if you’re eating something right now, look away. OK, here’s the photo, via TMZ:

She was trashed on social media by liberals and conservatives.

There are plenty of other tweets, too, but it’s a toxic cesspool that pretty much boils down to “SEE THIS IS LIBERAL HATE” and “TRUMP SUPPORTERS BASICALLY DID THE SAME THING TO OBAMA.”

This sums it up:

In case you’re wondering, yes, people are tweeting about it to the Secret Service, who seem to be indirectly responding to the outrage.

Griffin responded to the whole thing with a reference to a Trump comment about NBC (and former Fox News) host Megyn Kelly.

And so this stupid year rolls on.

Updated 8:04 PM ET:

Kathy Griffin issued an apology on Twitter.

“I sincerely apologize,” she said in a video. “I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people.”

She then said she was asking the photographer to take it down. “I made a mistake and I was wrong.”

Read more:

Where the Apple Watch fails

Image: Vicky Leta/Mashable

I recently began wearing an Apple Watch regularly. Generally I’m not a watch guy haven’t been since I gave up my calculator watch in the late ’80s but in recent years I’ve learned to appreciate some of the utility features of smartwatches.

I especially like the notifications, which necessitate only a glance at the wrist instead of the heavier lift literally and figuratively of digging my iPhone out of my pocket. First world problems, sure, but those are really what the Apple Watch (and, arguably, all consumer tech) was designed to address.

Other aspects of the Apple Watch frustrate me, though. For starters, there’s no ambient mode, meaning you can’t just flip a setting that’ll keep the watch face on all the time. To see the time, you need to tap the screen, push one of the buttons, or move your wrist in a significant way. For all of Apple’s claims of to-the-microsecond accuracy, the lack of ambient mode actually makes the Apple Watch worse at telling the time than a regular watch, which always has the time ready to serve up, even when you just sneak a peek at it without moving a muscle.

That’s five steps for something that should be two at the most.

In using the Apple Watch day to day, I’m also annoyed that audio playback controls what I would consider a fundamental feature of the watch are buried. If you’re listening to, say, a podcast, in order to pause playback you first need to move your wrist, press the home button, swipe to the Now Playing “glance” (the term Apple uses for app screens), tap to activate the glance, then tap again to actually press pause. That’s five steps for something that should be two at the most.

I could go on. But I also want to be clear: None of these individual gripes ruins what is otherwise a fine wearable gadget. The Apple Watch is a well-designed piece of hardware, and taking into account Apple’s signature marrying of software and hardware I’d go as far to say as it’s the best smartwatch money can buy.

Apple’s push to evolve the Apple Watch as a fitness device, including the Apple Watch Nike+, shows what its wearable priorities are.

Image: LIli Sams/Mashable

But as the Apple Watch has evolved, it’s become clear that Apple prioritizes some customers over others. When Apple unveiled the Apple Watch Series 2 last fall, the biggest upgrades were better waterproofing for swimmers and the Nike+ version for runners. The watch had always been a fitness tracker, but now it was doubly so.

On June 5, Apple will kick off its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), and it’s widely expected the company will continue with this wearable-health kick. More sophisticated health tools for watchOS are surely on deck, and we might even get an official look at the blood-glucose Apple Watch accessory Tim Cook’s apparently been spotted wearing.

Breathing is a big deal on the Apple Watch.

Image: Lili Sams/Mashable

That’s all well and good, but health and fitness occupy just one part of the smartwatch experience. With their ability to bring alerts, maps and other useful messages to your wrist, smartwatches have an informational component that I’d argue has wider appeal to the broader iPhone-buying public. And, apart from the UI clean-up in watchOS 3, Apple has shown little interest in refining that side of the equation.

Besides fitness, Apple likes to play up the Apple Watch as a fashion accessory, but this unnecessarily holds back the watch, too. With respect to design, Apple treats the watch like a Faberg egg artistically considered to the point where every design decision had just one answer and no other. That plays into Apple Watch-as-jewelry image (and helps sell those Edition models), but it’s left fans of round watches which many find aesthetically superior out in the cold.

In a slightly different way, that same attitude is behind the choice to eschew ambient mode. It’s understandable: Having the watch face on all the time would significantly impact battery life. But you could say the same thing about several features of the iPhone 7 (screen brightness, background app refresh, and auto-lock timeout to name just a few), and I don’t see Apple limiting those to absolutely ensure the phone lasts all day. But for some reason Apple Watch users don’t get the option.

The Apple Watch Edition shows Apple’s desire to have it seen as a piece of jewelry first, and a device second.

Image: Rill Causey/Mashable

All this speaks to the kind of Apple Watch user Apple wants to cultivate: fashionably discerning, addicted to fitness, supremely trusting in Apple’s hardware design. In other words, just like the folks who work at Apple Park in Cupertino.

No offense to those people, but they’re not the entirety of Apple’s customer base, and it’s here where the Apple Watch unnecessarily limits itself. The iPhone has a lot of things that make it special and unique among smartphones, but ultimately it’s a deceptively simple window to your digital life. Whether that life revolves around social media, business, entertainment, work, sports the little glass slab in your hand doesn’t judge.

But the Apple Watch does. It sits there, encouraging you to breathe, nudging you to stand up, or to just marvel at its polished contours and its hyper-accurate second hand. “Be more like us,” it almost seems to whisper in the voice of Tim Cook or Jony Ive.

No thanks. I’d rather be more like me.

Read more:

Election blind dates: Georgia Toffolo and Jack Monroe – BBC News

What happens when two strong-minded individuals from opposite sides of the political debate sit down for dinner? To find out, the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme has organised a series of political first dates for the general election campaign.

Made in Chelsea star Toff, real name Georgia Toffolo, says she had a privileged background and is a Conservative Party member.

Political campaigner and food blogger Jack Monroe, who at one time was unemployed and unable to afford food, has been a member of several parties, including the Labour Party.

They went into the meal without knowing who they would be meeting.

But did they get on?

Jack Monroe

Describe yourself: I’m Jack Monroe, aged 29, and I’m a food writer and political commentator.

Background: I used to be a 999 call-handler. I got pregnant with my son, and when I went back to work I couldn’t work the shift patterns any more. I ended up in a shoddy personal situation – I didn’t eat for three days in a row to feed my child. I started to write about being a single mum on the dole and it seemed to strike a chord with people. Then I got offered a recipe book deal and life went stratospheric.

Political beliefs: I’ve been a member of the Labour Party on and off for the past few years, about six or seven years, eight maybe. I’ve also been a member of the Green Party at that time. I’m also a member of the Women’s Equality Party and the National Health Action party.

How was your date?: I think it went well. It was nice to meet Georgia and talk to her and try to understand her point of view a bit more.

First impression: I have seen Made in Chelsea, but not for a couple of years. I thought she was fun, she was very, very nice. I was surprised at how young she was because she seemed quite firm in her beliefs, she seemed very politically aware.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionJack Monroe: ‘Every system is open to abuse’

What did you agree on?: Her most convincing argument, the one I agreed with, was about national security. She was quite strong about armed police and how there is a rise in that and how we all have to adjust to it and and the reasoning behind that.

What did you disagree on?: I found some of her views on welfare difficult to listen to as someone who had quite a difficult time on benefits. To hear her saying, ‘Oh the Conservatives are taking money from people who don’t need it’, and you’re like, ‘No they’re not, they’re taking money from people like me’.

Best thing: I thought she was really, really friendly and just very nice and she was very good at listening. She asked lots of questions and she just genuinely seems like a warm, friendly human being.

Worst thing: I did find her views on fox hunting quite difficult to swallow.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionThe pair strongly disagree over fox hunting

Did you change her mind?: We both seemed to have shifted slightly closer to the centre by the end of lunch. I don’t think she’ll be going home and telling all her friends to vote for Jeremy Corbyn but I’d like to think that we’ve both given each other something to think about.

Did she change your mind?: I think my views are quite strongly held. I wouldn’t say that she’d drastically changed my mind about anything but it certainly put a human face to some of the things that I consider to be more radical Conservative beliefs.

Second date: I’d love to see her again. Genuinely would. I thought she was fun, I thought she was engaging. I think I’d have a much more interesting life with her in it.

Find out more

Watch the Victoria Derbyshire programme on weekdays between 09:00 and 11:00 BST on BBC Two and the BBC News Channel.

Thursday’s election blind date will be classicist Prof Mary Beard and nightclub owner Peter Stringfellow.


Describe yourself: My name is Georgia Toffolo, I’m 22, best known for being on a TV programme called Made in Chelsea and I really love politics.

Background: I’m very lucky I went to a nice school and I live in a very lovely part of London.

Political beliefs: I’m a member of the Conservative Party and I have been for about eight years now. I believe that the traditions of our country should be upheld and I’m a real advocate of business. I can’t comprehend why someone my age would support the Labour Party.

How was your date?: I actually enjoyed it so much and I’m a bit surprised because for someone that has different views to me, it was amazing. She could tell me why I was wrong, which is so good, and it’s actually kind of made me think a little bit more about where I stand. It hasn’t changed my political ideology, but maybe a little bit more understanding of people who have had hard times.

First impressions: She was very different to me. Not the stereotypical Labour voter.

What did you agree on?: I actually agreed with her a lot on our views on national security. We also agreed on LGBT rights, which is fantastic.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionToff: “The harder I work, the more I earn”

What did you disagree on?: The thing that angered me the most is our differing views on tax. I just cannot comprehend how anyone could have her views on taxation. The lower the better.

Did you win any arguments?: I think I did convince her a little bit because when we looked at our political spectrum again she moved a little bit more centre.

Best part: Jeremy Corbyn-bashing. It’s my favourite activity.

Awkward moments: I found the most awkward part talking about benefits, because she had some fantastic points, but I believe what I believe in. But some of her arguments were quite deep ones where it threw me a bit, because what can you say when someone says, “Oh you know I was starving for three days”?

Could you be friends?: I actually think we could be friends. I hope we stay in touch, I had such a lovely time. I need to get the next lunch.

Watch more election blind dates

Find out what happened when ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage went on a date with journalist – and Boris Johnson’s sister – Rachel Johnson.

Read more:

A study about how endometriosis affects men’s sex lives? That’s enraging | Imogen Dunlevie

Endometriosis affects 176 million women but there is no cure, no known cause and treatment is limited. There is no case for a study about its impact on men

Endometriosis is a disease that affects one in 10 women of reproductive age. It affects approximately 600,000 women in Australia and 176 million women worldwide. Yet endometriosis receives very little funding and attention from the medical world. In fact, many people have never even heard of it despite it being so common.

I was diagnosed with endometriosis when I was 15 years old. This only happened after I spent two years trying to convince doctors it wasnt normal that I had pain so bad during my period that I couldnt walk. (And my diagnosis was relatively quick the average time taken for diagnosis is eight to 10 years.) Since then, my life has been filled with surgery, doctors, medication, invasive procedures and constant pain that impacts everything I do. It took me longer to finish school because of endometriosis. I deferred university last year because I needed surgery. I cant do jobs that require me to stand for long periods of time. I often have to cancel plans because Im in so much pain.

A big part of the struggle with endometriosis is how little is understood about it. I see good doctors who care and want to help, but there is only so much that can be done when the funding and focus is not there. Researchers still do not know what causes the disease and there is no cure. Treatments are variable in their effectiveness.

On Tuesday, I was alerted to the fact that the University of Sydney has recently approved research into how mens sex lives are impacted by being in a relationship with someone who has endometriosis. This study is being conducted by masters student who wishes to explore the impact of endometriosis on mens sexual wellbeing.

Considering the tiny amount of attention and funding endometriosis gets, its enraging to see someone conducting a study into how this disease impacts men. Womens sex lives are far more impacted by endometriosis than mens are, and if any study on this area is being conducted it should look at how women and their sex lives are impacted. Endometriosis does not hurt a mans sexual wellbeing. It does however impact every aspect of your life when you suffer from it. It can mean that sex is often painful and unpleasant, penetration can cause bleeding and pain remains for days afterwards.

Studies like this one make it look like the only way endometriosis will get attention is if we highlight how it hurts men. Its not enough for women to share their countless stories of pain and suffering. How it limits their ability to finish study, work full time or even have sex. Its not enough to describe the surgeries, and the medications, the invasive procedures that provide little to no relief. The only way we can get people to care is to tell them that men are impacted too.

There are so many other things that should be looked at regarding endometriosis before we look at how it impacts sex for men: a less invasive way to diagnose, understanding the ways it impacts the everyday life of people who have it, proper pain management, raising awareness so women arent accused of lying, a cure.

Women have to fight to be believed that there is even something wrong. Then when they are finally diagnosed they have to fight for better treatment and pain medication just so they can live with some normality in their life. Doctors treat you like youre making it up or youre exaggerating.

Some doctors dont even know what endometriosis is. I once spent a night in the emergency room in so much pain I could not walk, and the doctor informed me that he had to google endometriosis because he wasnt totally sure what it is.

These are the things women have to put up with when they have endometriosis. These are the ways that women suffer because of endometriosis. So much of having this disease is trying to get some attention on it, and trying to get people to research it. In the past year, there has been more coverage of it in the news, but to see a study about how it impacts men, particularly their sex life, feels like one step forwards and two steps back.

This is not about attacking the researcher I contacted her to try to understand her reasons but she had not responded at the time of publication. Endometriosis affects about the same number of women as diabetes and costs about the same but receives 5% of the funding of diabetes. Theres no cure, no known cause and not even a reliable treatment. This is about frustration of how endometriosis is treated at the moment. This study fits into a wider context where womens pain is not always acknowledged.

It is damaging to set a potential precedent of male-centric studies into the impacts of endometriosis. There is no logical way that any discussion about endometriosis should focus on how it impacts men, or the partners of people who actually have it. We can barely get a conversation about endometriosis going in the first place. We should not start a conversation about endometriosis to see how men feel about it, particularly not to see how it impacts their sex life.

Read more:

Brexit expat retirees ‘may cost NHS millions’ – BBC News

Image copyright Getty Images

Tens of thousands of expat pensioners may return to the UK to use the NHS after Brexit – unless a deal can be done to let them keep receiving care abroad, a think tank has warned.

The Nuffield Trust estimates the cost of treating them – on home soil, rather than abroad – could double to 1bn.

Currently, the UK gives around 500m a year to EU countries that care for Brits who have retired abroad.

Last year, spending on the NHS in England was around 120 billion.

The warning from the Nuffield Trust came as Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told a newspaper that the NHS could suffer if Brexit “goes wrong”.

Brits abroad

Around 190,000 British pensioners live abroad.

Under the EU reciprocal “S1” scheme, British pensioners have the right to go to any other EU member state and receive the same health care rights as the local population.

According to the Nuffield Trust, it may not be easy to continue with this agreement after Brexit.

If all of these pensioners decided to return to the UK – a big if – they could be expected to fill 900 NHS hospital beds a year, it says.

The NHS would need around 1,600 more doctors, nurses and other workers to provide the care, it estimates.

Also, hospitals could end up short-staffed if migration of workers from the EU slows or stops post-Brexit.

And access to medicines could also become more difficult if the UK leaves the EU’s medicine licensing system.

Possible benefits

But there could be gains too post-Brexit, the Nuffield Trust says.

When the UK leaves the EU it could stop paying EU membership fees. Money from this saving could be used by the NHS.

Nuffield Trust spokesman Mark Dayan said: “It is possible that extra funds could be found for the NHS from any cancellation of Britain’s EU membership fees.

“But whether or not these benefits will outweigh the significant staffing and financial costs Brexit may impose on already stretched services remains to be seen.

“That depends largely on the NHS being recognised as a significant priority as we enter some of the most important negotiations in Britain’s history.”

The British Medical Association urged politicians to keep the health service and its patients at the forefront during Brexit negotiations.

A Conservative party spokesman said safeguarding the rights of UK nationals in the EU and EU nationals in the UK was “one of our first priorities for the Brexit negotiations”.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: “A brighter future is possible. We will stand up to a bad Brexit deal that would hit the NHS hard, and give people the final say with a chance to remain in the EU.”

Labour have not commented on the Nuffield Trust’s report, but have accused the Conservatives of “starving” the NHS.

Related Topics

Read more:

South Carolina Democrat’s Poll Shows Progress Against GOP Rival

Archie Parnell, the Democrat running for the open U.S. House seat in South Carolinas 5th District, now trails Republican Ralph Norman by 10 percentage points, according to an internal campaign poll.

The margin is an improvement from a 16-point deficit in March, according to a summary of the Anzalone Liszt Grove Research Group polling obtained by HuffPost that wasfirst reported by The Washington Post.

The figures allow Parnell, a 66-year-old former tax attorney, to make the case for assistance from the national Democratic Party, despite the steep odds he faces. Parnell is due to square off against Norman, a conservative former state representative, on June 20, leaving him less than three weeks to pull off an upset.

The special election to fill the seat vacated by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney will occur the same day Democrats hope to take control of Georgias 6th Congressional District, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is up against Republican Karen Handel, with polls showing him ahead but in a close contest.

Parnells bid has received a fraction of the national attention and resources showered on the Georgia contest, which is on track to be the most expensive House race in history.

The political fundamentals of the South Carolina district make it clear why Democrats are wary of jumping in the race with greater gusto. Although President Donald Trump won by less than 2 percentage points in Georgias affluent 6th District, he won by nearly 20 points in South Carolinas 5th. Mulvaney modestly surpassed that margin with his landslide win in November.

And in Montana, where Trump also won the state by 20 percentage points, Republican Greg Gianforte defeated Democrat Rob Quist by 6 points last Thursday despite being charged withassaulting a reporter the day before.

Archie Parnell
South Carolina Democrat Archie Parnell commissioned a poll showing him catching up but still 10 percentage points behind his Republican opponent, Ralph Norman.

The Republican hold on South Carolinas 5th District is relatively recent, however. Mulvaney, who took the seat in the tea party wave of 2010, was the first Republican to represent the district since Reconstruction.

Parnell is hoping that anger at Trump will energize Democrats, particularly the districts sizable population of black voters, enough to drive up turnout in an off-year election where participation is normally low.

The internal poll shows that 50 percent of the districts Democrats believe the election is more important than most elections, compared with 26 percent of Republican voters.

But Parnell is also betting that the passage of the Affordable Care Act replacement bill in the Republican-controlled House can help him win over some independent or even Republican voters.

Fifty percent of voters in the district oppose the GOP bill to replace Obamacare, compared with 42 percent who support it, according to the campaigns poll.

Norman, who defeated a more moderate rival in a close primary, is an ardent proponent of Obamacare repeal and has said he would consider joining the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if elected. (Mulvaney was a founding member of the group.)

Parnell, by contrast, has campaigned against the Republican health care bill and backs safe importation of prescription drugs as a way to lower drug prices.

The cerebral and soft-spoken Parnell hardly embodies the populist mood currently sweeping the Democratic Party; he most recently held a top post at Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs.

But Parnell claims that his colleagues at the liberal bogeyman called him the policeman for his work overseeing financial compliance and that his deep knowledge of the tax code equips him to fight for reforms that would make corporations pay their fair share.

In a new video advertisement released Tuesday, Parnell makes light of his wonkish disposition by contrasting himself favorably with Frank Underwood, the debonair, Machiavellian protagonist of the TV series House of Cards, whose fictional district resembles Parnells.

Parnell mixes goofy, Underwood-style one-liners with actual facts about Trumps presidency as the theme music of the Netflix show plays in the background.

The ad concludes with text onscreen saying, Archie Parnell is no Frank Underwood. And Washington shouldnt be like House of Cards.

Read more:

Portland man accused of fatal train stabbing has outburst in court

Jeremy Joseph Christian, accused of killing two men as they shielded a woman from his anti-Muslim tirade, shouted: You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism!

The man accused of fatally stabbing two men in Portland, Oregon, when they tried to shield young women from his anti-Muslim tirade, made repeated outbursts in court on Tuesday, including shouting: You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism!

Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, was in Multnomah County courtroom Tuesday afternoon for his first court appearance on two counts of felony aggravated murder and other charges for the Friday attack.

Authorities say Christian started verbally abusing two young women, including one wearing a hijab. Three men on the train intervened before police say Christian attacked them, killing two and wounding one.

As Christian walked into the courtroom he yelled out: Free speech or die, Portland! You got no safe place. This is America. Get out if you dont like free speech!

Standing behind glass partitions in the defendants area, he continued: Death to the enemies of America. Leave this country if you hate our freedom. Death to Antifa! You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism! You hear me? Die.

As he finished his statement, a crowd of about 30 anti-fascist protesters who were watching a livestream on their phones, could be heard yelling outside the courtroom doors.

On Friday, authorities say, Jeremy Christian started verbally abusing two young women, including one wearing a hijab, on a light-rail train. Police say when three other men on the train, including surviving victim Micah Fletcher, intervened, Christian attacked them. The other two men, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23, and Rick Best, 53, were killed.

Read more:

The World Could Enter Climate Danger Zone If Trump Exits Paris Deal

Donald Trump wasn’t exaggerating when he said during his election campaign that the U.S. could “cancel” the Paris Accord on climate change.

A decision due from the president this week on whether to pull the U.S. out of the deal involving almost 200 nations could have a domino effect on the participation of other countries in limiting fossil-fuel pollution, making it almost impossible and extremely expensive to stop catastrophic climate change.

That’s the conclusion of researchers and scientists evaluating the impact of Trump on the health of the climate. While forecasting the state of the environment more than 80 years into the future is a notoriously inexact exercise, academics gathered by the the United Nations at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are concerned the world is headed for “extensive” species extinctions, serious crop damage and irreversible increases in sea levels even before Trump started to unpick the fight against global warming.

“Four years of the Trump administration may have only modest consequences, but eight years of bad policy would probably wreck the world’s chances of keeping warming below the international target of 2 degrees Celsius,” Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said by email. “The odds of our avoiding the climate-danger zone would fade to zero.”

Read more: Trump’s Difficult Choice on Paris Climate Accord

While a 2-degree shift wouldn’t be noticeable during the course of a day, it would represent a historic change for the Earth as a whole that’s faster than any change in the climate since the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago. The scenarios that scientists are looking at depend on measurements of air and water temperatures taken at hundreds of sites around the world, as well as complex models about how trends will evolve in the coming decades.

Trump’s move would clearly make the outlook worse, according to Climate Interactive, a team of modelers backed by institutions such as MIT Sloan School of Management and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. They estimate that the world would warm by 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 when compared with pre-industrial levels if Trump quits Paris, more than the 3.3-degree baseline scenario.

As the world’s second-biggest polluter after China, a move by the U.S. to scrap the accord involving almost 200 nations would pour hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and speed up the warming trend already taking place. It also would threaten a $100 billion-a-year stream of funds that industrial nations have pledged to persuade developing nations to cut back their own emissions, endangering the political foundations of the global fight against climate change.

“The loss of U.S. finance would be the biggest headache, and of course the symbolism is not good,” said Michael Grubb, a professor at University College London who has advised the European Union on climate policy.

The Paris Agreement sealed in 2015 brought together the U.S. and European Union with big developing nations from China to India to Brazil in pledging limits on fossil-fuel pollution and funds to help poorer countries adapt to climate change.

Longer term, the impact of a U.S. withdraw depends on how other countries and investors respond. Trump, who for months has delayed a decision on the climate agreement, told his almost 31 million Twitter followers to expect his final verdict this week, and the signs are pointing toward a withdrawal.

G-7 Statement

In an unprecedented step, the U.S. broke from the other six nations on Saturday in a joint statement issued at the Group of 7 summit, saying America is reviewing its policy. The political news website Axios reported that he’d told confidants he plans to pull the U.S. out of the deal.

“The big question is whether a U.S. withdrawal would lead to U.S. investors and utilities actually starting to build new plants that commit to high future emissions,” Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said by phone.

So far, no other country, not even China or India has said they’d follow the U.S. in pulling out of Paris. Instead, it’s catalyzed support for the deal.

The key variables are what policies Trump enacts and how long they remain in force. The targets agreed on global warming through the UN are for 2100, and shifts in the energy industry take decades to play out. U.S. inaction on greenhouse gases may eventually discourage other countries from continuing their own efforts to cut back, said Oppenheimer at Princeton.
The Paris agreement was designed in such a way that legally, no other country’s action would be impacted by a withdrawal. Paris effectively sets up the reporting framework and the temperature goals, but each country’s individual target is voluntary.

In reality, an eight year delay on climate action would be accompanied by cuts to renewable energy research that could in turn harm emissions reductions rates. Those policies may encourage the use of polluting fuels such as coal.

All told, each of these changes could add a total of 350 billion to 450 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, if the rest of the world followed Trump, according to climate modelers, Ben Sanderson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Reto Knutti of ETH, Zurich. The chances of meeting the UN target of staying well below 2 degrees of warming would drop to about 10 percent, from two-thirds now, they say.

“Delay is the worst enemy for any climate target and can only be made worse by cutting research and energy technologies that would be crucial to get back on track again for target,” they wrote in the journal Nature earlier this year.

Read more: