WACO – The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV) Vaqueros men’s tennis team is ready to compete against some of the best players in the country heading to the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) Texas Regional.

The ITA Texas Regional will be held Thursday through Tuesday at Baylor’s facilities in Waco. Players of the Div. I programs across the state will gather and compete in singles and doubles for a chance to advance to the NCAA singles and doubles championships.

The action begins on Thursday at 8 a.m. with the qualifying round of 64 individual games. There will be five student-athletes participating in the UTRGV – juniors Sam Whitehead, Second year students Santiago Serrano, Ivo Isqueiro And Paolo Bonaguro, and freshmen Eduardo Menezes. The Vaqueros want to win on Thursday and advance to Friday’s contest.

Freshmen Loic Young Kriegel will begin his individual run on Friday in the main field. The doubles matches begin on Friday in the round of 64.

Thursday schedule
Singles
Qualifying round of the last 64
Sam Whitehead (UTRGV) vs. Takuma Walter (PVAMU), 8 p.m
Santiago Serrano (UTRGV) vs. Xavier Calvelo (SMU), 8 a.m
Eduardo Menezes (UTRGV) vs. Merse Deli (ACU), 9:15 a.m
Ivo Isqueiro (UTRGV) vs. Christian Cuellar (UIW), 9:30 a.m
Pablo Bonaguro (UTRGV) vs. Matheus Lima (ACU), 10:30 a.m

Support UTRGV Men’s Tennis | Become a fan on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Follow us on Instagram | Follow us on YouTube

To quote Heath Ledger’s take on the Clown Prince of Crime, perhaps some wit should write, “Why so serious?” in the glass-fronted offices at Warner Bros. Discovery this week as executives there discuss the box office smash of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” ” ponder. A disastrous opening weekend of $37.7 million, the biggest second weekend drop for a DC film (81%), worldwide grosses currently sit at a paltry $165 million… How does the studio compare to the original by 2019, which was worth billions in sales at the time, was over? Is this the highest-earning R-rated film?

Last but not least, the Joker lives up to his reputation as an agent of chaos. But he’s also the most popular comic book villain in a storied franchise; a draw almost equal to Batman himself, which makes the catastrophe all the more unimaginable. According to word of mouth, Joker: Folie à Deux is expected to lose $125 million to $200 million, depending on whose budget estimate you believe. If it’s the $300 million widely touted for production and marketing, then that’s clearly what stymied the film. So it would take up to $475 million to break even. Risky reinterpretations of sacred pop culture icons are much more feasible with the first film’s reasonable budget of $60 million.

$300 million is a shocking sum. The money has increased on screen in the sense that director Todd Phillips and lead actor Joaquin Phoenix both received $20 million and supporting actress Lady Gaga received $12 million; over a quarter of the $200 million production budget. But aside from the beautiful lighting, cinematography and climax sequence, the film doesn’t feel overly elaborate. Since it’s an isolated affair, set largely in Arkham State Hospital and the courtroom, there’s virtually nothing to explain the expense of extensive CGI pyrotechnics. The most likely explanation is that it was a big bet born of pandemic desperation for surefire success in reopening theaters.

It seems doubly shocking when you consider that Phillips and Phoenix decided to turn the film into a musical – supposedly initially as a Broadway play. (The original’s stair dance probably should have served as a warning.) Even on paper, the genre doesn’t promise the kind of return the budget demands, unless you’re a children’s cartoon. And the sideways step from realism to a drag musical with a broken voice was probably never going to appeal to the original’s core audience of Joker fans, let alone the bitter incel quotient whose concerns it channeled. They also can’t imagine that Lady Gaga – as good as she is in the role – is anything like what they’ve come to expect from previous psycho-hot portrayals of Harley Quinn.

It’s not Phillips and Phoenix’s fault that their top-heavy jamboree landed on the wrong side of the superhero slump that has plagued both DC and Marvel. It also didn’t lose the lightning-in-a-bottle factor when Joker showed up in 2019, right in the middle of Trump’s presidency. Applying references to Scorsese’s toxic masculinity classics “Taxi Driver” and “King of Comedy” like an Instagram filter, it came across as an exploitation flick delighting in themes of emasculation and oppression, vicarious living through entertainment and the potential of demagoguery. But it is precisely with these couples that the dark sequel struggles to ignite similar energies for much of its running time. It’s all about a horny deconstruction of the Joker’s personality and bombarding the audience with more superficial arguments about America’s addiction to fame.

Phillips apparently wanted to make a course correction after being accused of indulging in toxic fandom in the first film. The fact that Arthur Fleck definitely dismisses the Joker as a pathetic psychological crutch definitely gets his point across.

But punishing the fan base so openly would be tantamount to box office self-harm (probably why the director refused to screen Joker: Folie à Deux as a test film). The impunity of a $300 million budget appears to have led Phillips to mistakenly believe the film to be an auteur, and filming during a period of regime change at both Warner and DC reportedly allowed him to film with weak supervision act. According to Variety, he refused to engage with new DC bosses James Gunn and Peter Safran, saying, “With all due respect to them, this is kind of a Warner Bros movie.” But he also rejected the new one’s suggestions Warner President David Zaslav decided to make budget cuts, including moving filming to London instead of Los Angeles.

Skip the newsletter advertising

after newsletter advertising

The film’s crash will have repercussions for the still-struggling DC and beyond. This kind of overly conceptual approach will certainly be banned in blockbusters for some time, and one wonders if it will force more conservative reimaginings of other recurring icons, particularly Bond. It’s another question whether this almighty flop will give Hollywood pause for thought about pressuring beloved intellectual property until it runs out of juice. Could Phillips’ sluggishness in converting realism into expressionism have something to do with the fact that this is the Joker’s fifth major appearance in just over 15 years?

Perhaps, given his 1970s lodestars, Phillips currently views the Folie à Deux debacle as a major act of subversion within the corporate studio system; The insane take over the institution, in the style of the anarchic BBS troupe of Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider. Or maybe the mood and message of the film just came a few months too early. It has its powerful moments: Fleck’s final outburst of involuntary laughter, even after abandoning his alter ego, suggests a deep, incurable violence that lies within America’s sternum. If Trump is elected or Harris contests the presidency, Phillips’ banquet of cold psychological vomit could be in dire jeopardy. Would that still be considered the last laugh?

Meteorologists predict a weak La Niña is likely to occur this winter season, bringing warmer weather to southern states and a cooler, wetter winter to the northwestern United States.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there is a 60 percent chance that La Niña will appear in November and last until January or March 2025.

The weather event is expected to disrupt weather patterns across the U.S. and affect how much rain and snow certain regions receive this season. It could also mean a more severe hurricane season, the agency warned.

The last time La Niña was seen in the Big Apple, there were warm conditions and little snow, although meteorologists warn that anything could happen due to the weather event.

What is a La Niña winter?

La Niña, or “little girl” in Spanish, refers to the periodic cooling of the waters of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America.

“La Niña means temperatures are cooler than average, while El Niño is warmer than average. It’s a global pattern that fluctuates from season to season,” Fox Forecast Center meteorologist Stephanie van Oppen told The Post.

The weather event typically occurs every three to five years. Last year, the US experienced the opposite effect – an El Niño – which brought very little snow to the Big Apple in addition to warm and wet conditions.

Although La Niña is a naturally occurring phenomenon, the weather event “can change our weather patterns based on the temperature of that section of the ocean,” van Oppen said.

What does this mean for the USA?

During La Niña events, cold water in the Pacific drives the jet stream north, often causing droughts in the southern United States and heavy rains that flood the northern part of the country and Canada.

“If La Niña conditions were to develop this winter, the Southeast could expect warmer-than-average temperatures and a drier-than-average winter,” van Oppen said. “Across the Northern Plains, in places like Montana, Colorado and the Midwest, temperatures could be cooler than average.”

“The Pacific Northwest and then the Great Lakes could also see a wetter than average winter,” van Oppen added.

In New York City, La Niña could mean a variety of things, according to van Oppen, who puts the Big Apple in a “boom-or-bust” scenario.

“It could mean a lot [of snow] or very, very little snow,” said van Oppen.

Historically, La Niña has brought both blizzards and just a few inches of snow to the five boroughs, so there’s no telling what kind of winter New York City will experience.

“It kind of brings us into question as to whether or not we have conditions that are conducive to large snow events or whether or not we’re going to be stuck in a snow drought,” van Oppen said.

States that could be most affected

The Pacific Northwest will likely bear the brunt of La Niña.

“You would most likely see above-average snowfall, which would also likely lead to cooler temperatures,” van Oppen said.

If La Niña occurs, states like Oregon, Washington and Idaho would likely see multiple weather systems move from the Pacific Ocean across the Pacific Northwest, bringing lots of rain and snow.

These conditions also have the potential to spread to the Great Lakes region, although they likely would not be as severely affected as northern West Coast states, van Oppen said.

When was the last time that happened?

The last time La Niña was seen in the United States was during the 2022-2023 winter season, when it brought warm and wet weather to New York City.

“All winter we only saw 2.3 inches of snowfall in Central Park. However, there have been other instances in the past where we have seen really heavy snowfalls, most notably the January 1995-1996 snowstorm that hit Central Park, which also occurred during a weak La Niña.”

The 2022-2023 season also marked the third consecutive year that the U.S. experienced La Niña conditions, a rare phenomenon that meteorologists call a “triple dip.”

Zach Trujillo is stationed at Sheppard Air Force Base and has been a Wichita Falls resident for six years.

“When I saw all the devastation caused by the recent hurricanes, I felt compelled to come out and donate.”

Trujillo has been donating blood for 10 years. After reading an article about the need for blood, he understood the importance of donating and sharing a human gift with those who need it. Trujillo has seen the effects of blood donation firsthand through the transfusions his father and other family members have received in the past.

“It was great to see them get what they needed and this is now my way of giving back to others.”
Trujillo came to the Wichita Falls chapter office as a B-negative blood donor to make his first Power Red donation.

“I read online that the Red Cross needs Power Red donors and I’m happy to be a part of it.”

Those who called for the Chicago White Sox to be sold may have gotten their wish.

White Sox chairman and principal owner Jerry Reinsdorf is reportedly ready to sell Chicago’s Southside team.

The Athletic first reported the news on Wednesday, citing sources saying Reinsdorf was in active discussions about selling the team.

Reinsdorf purchased the White Sox in 1981 for $19 million and is estimated to own a 19% stake in the franchise.

The White Sox become the second AL Central team this week whose owners are exploring a sale for their franchise. The Pohlad family announced last Thursday that they were exploring a sale of the Minnesota Twins. The Pohlads have owned the Twins since 1984.

The White Sox also had the worst season in modern MLB history, losing an MLB record 121 games. After the season, Reinsdorf wrote a letter to the fans and described the season as a failure.

“Above all, I am a fan, a fan of baseball, of Chicago and the White Sox,” Reinsdorf said in a letter to fans. “Every loss this season – every blown save, every defensive mistake, every shutout, every sweep – hurt. It’s been a long, painful season for all of us. We realize every day that it is our responsibility to earn your trust, your attention, your time and your support. We vow to take this approach daily as we improve the work this offseason.”

Let’s start by thinking about the best-case and worst-case scenarios for a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris presidency.

This is not something I normally do. In my experience the best-case and worst-case scenarios tend to be the most unlikely ones. And, if you spend your life making decisions based on avoiding being eaten by sharks or on definitely winning the Powerball this weekend, you’re going to make a lot of poor decisions. So, let’s rule out the extreme scenarios and stick with the fairly plausible ones. That means ruling out most of the stuff you hear on cable about fascist dictatorships, America-as-Venezuela, and global thermonuclear war. 

This is still a harder exercise than it seems at first, because success and failure are in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. Think of it this way: Ideologues and partisans have different agendas and interests. I’ve found that this is one of the hardest distinctions to explain to people because the two categories are essentially platonic, without many flesh-and-blood examples in real life. We often treat hyper-partisans and hyper-ideologues as synonymous types, in part because most extreme ideologues are also extreme partisans, and they don’t see much of a difference. But there are exceptions. The best illustration of the point would be (some) libertarians. Libertarians have feet in both the left and right, so they aren’t completely at home in either. Thus, the best libertarians tend to focus more on moving policy in their direction. If the Democrats are libertarian on X they’ll root for Democrats on X. If the Republicans are libertarian on Y, they’ll lend aid and comfort to Republicans on Y. In other words, libertarians—at least the ones I have in mind—are very ideological but not very partisan. 

There used to be all sorts of issues that worked this way. The National Rifle Association used to give a lot of money to pro-Second Amendment Democrats. There used to be a lot of pro-abortion rights Republicans. But the alchemy of the Big Sort and polarization have transmogrified the parties. 

Which is why this kind of distinction is very, very hard to find on today’s left and right. If Republicans are for it, that’s conservative. If conservatives are for it, that’s the Republican position. Ditto for the left and Democrats. Obviously, there are some specific issues that divide partisans internally, but I can’t think of any that would cause a serious left-winger to root for Republicans or a serious right-winger to vote for Democrats. Except of course, for the issue of Donald Trump and his fitness for office. People who say Liz Cheney isn’t conservative because she’s endorsed Kamala Harris are a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. A purely strategic decision that is bad for Republicans is perceived as a rejection of conservatism qua conservatism. I think that’s ridiculous. But lots of very smart people, including many of my friends, see it that way. But let’s put that aside for the moment. 

It’s instructive that for a middle-of-the-road type who doesn’t much care about partisan politics or ideological agendas, the best-case scenarios for both presidencies actually look pretty similar: a very good economy, no war, a lot less drama, and maybe some concrete success at getting the border and our fiscal house in order. For people tuned out of politics, Trump’s presidency looks pretty good in retrospect to them. There was a lot of drama—but, again, they tuned a lot of that out—but we had a good economy (until COVID) and little war (for some reason, a lot of people forget that there were more American troops in combat under Trump—in Afghanistan, against ISIS, etc.— than there have been under Joe Biden. And, while final stats aren’t available yet, it looks like more Americans will have died from hostile action under Trump than under Biden). Nostalgia for high wage growth and low inflation is not irrational during a time of high inflation.

Meanwhile, the best-case scenarios for hyper-partisans and ideologues are like inverse mirror images. If Trump wins, the best-case scenario for the ultra-MAGA crowd looks a lot like the worst-case scenario for the left. Stephen Miller hits the ground running on Project 2025, Trump crushes the left, dismantles DEI and climate-change stuff, and deports millions of migrants at gunpoint. Maybe he even manages to convince Congress to pull us out of NATO. If Harris wins, the best-case scenario for the left is the worst case for the right. She immediately reverts to the Kamala Harris of 2019, writes a blank check for gender “therapy,” blows billions on globalist alliances, packs the Supreme Court, abolishes the legislative filibuster, and triples down on the Green New Deal. 

Now, I should say, I think both of these scenarios are very unlikely for largely the same reasons. Neither Trump nor Harris are particularly good politicians or administrators. And the more they pursue the brass ring of the best-case scenario desired by their biggest fans, the more opposition and roadblocks they will encounter. 

What’s interesting to me is most of my tribe of conservatives who are going to vote for Trump don’t actually want him to succeed on the full MAGA agenda. They don’t want to pull out of NATO. They may want to see a bunch of people deported—I do too—but they understand that a massive domestic military operation is operationally, politically, and in some cases, morally unfeasible. But they also roll their eyes at the idea that Trump will do many of the things that anti-Trump people worry about. Like the normies, they point at the first Trump term and say we’ll get more of the same, which is much better than what we’d get under Harris. In other words, they believe the worst-case scenarios about Harris but reject the worst-case scenarios about Trump.

Now, I am extremely skeptical about Trump II being a replay of Trump I (I also disagree with those conservatives about how Trump I was simply a matter of “mean tweets” and the like). He’s angrier, weirder, and more confident now. The major lesson he learned from his presidency is to surround himself with true believers, loyalists, and enablers. Trump won’t defer to the John Kellys, Paul Ryans, and Mitch McConnells, because they won’t be there to talk him out of stupid or dangerous ideas. He’ll be surrounded by people who will respond to his every impulse as if it were oracular genius. Perhaps not entirely on foreign policy: I generally trust Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton not to be idiots or whack jobs. I have no such confidence in, say, Kash Patel. I think it’s preposterous to believe Trump will be talked out of protectionism and industrial policy.

But I could be wrong. Where I am more confident, however, is that their vision of the worst-case Harris presidency is wrong. Unlike Trump, Harris will be up for reelection. The same calculations driving her to the center now would remain in effect once she’s elected. Will she do bad and dumb things? Of course. But even if the Democrats win both the House and the Senate, she won’t have the kinds of majorities that Barack Obama enjoyed. Indeed, it seems unlikely the Democrats will take the Senate, which would mean court-packing, the Green New Deal, etc., would be impossible, even if she tried to pursue such things. People forget that though Obama was a very talented politician, once he lost Congress he was pretty ineffectual. Sure, he did some stuff with his mighty “pen and phone,” but a lot of that stuff was erased after Trump took office. Harris would enter the White House a worse politician without congressional majorities, and much, much, less personal popularity.

It’s weird. Partisan Republicans love to talk about what a bad politician she is. They talk about how she gives terrible interviews and can’t explain policies. Her inappropriate laughing makes people squirm. And they’re right. She sounds like she cribbed her favorite sound bites from greeting cards and throw pillows at a healing crystal gift shop in Sonoma. But for some reason they think that once she’s president, she’ll be unstoppable? 

I think the most likely scenario is that Harris would be a modest failure. Her best accomplishment would be fulfilled the moment she—not Trump—took the oath of office.

And here’s where I think the distinction between principled ideologues and partisans becomes most relevant. For partisans, winning is always the highest priority. It’s zero-sum. But if you don’t care much about partisan victories, you can see how partisan defeats can be good in the long run. And not just good for your agenda, but for parties, too. Was it good for the GOP that Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed? No. Was it good for conservatism? Hell no. But for the crash you don’t get FDR and the New Deal. In other words, a 1928 defeat for the GOP would have been good for it and conservatism in the long run.

Biden was going to lose badly because he decided to run up ideological victories—to go “bigger than Obama” and push a new New Deal—and it blew up in his face. He was going to get hit with inflation no matter what, but he made it worse by sticking to his “legacy”-padding ideological agenda. If Biden had followed his political interest and served as the moderate normalcy candidate he ran as, he might have been able to stay on the ticket—and win—despite his infirmity.

If Harris wins it will be an obvious loss for the GOP in 2024 because of that zero-sum thing. But a weak and unpopular Harris presidency would quite plausibly be better for the GOP in the long run. After all, the Obama presidency was great for the GOP (as was the Carter presidency). Obama’s presidency wiped out moderate Democrats across the country. More than a thousand elected Democrats lost their jobs during his tenure, with state legislatures and statehouses flipping for Republicans. And his presidency—and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy—made Trump’s victory possible. 

Now, if Harris actually governs as a moderate, triangulating like Bill Clinton and hugging the center, she might be more successful. She might even be reelected. That would be bad for Republicans. But would it actually be bad for conservatism? In some ways, perhaps. But in some ways this would be a victory for conservatives because it would move the Democratic Party rightward, which would move the center of gravity of American politics rightward. And that’s what conservatives are supposed to care about more than mere partisan success. Moving the Overton window rightward would mean that more left-wing ideas would be considered fringe and beyond the pale of the politically acceptable. One of the biggest victories conservatives ever scored in my lifetime was symbolized by Bill Clinton declaring, “The era of big government is over.” When he signed welfare reform, it was bad for Republicans—because it arguably guaranteed his reelection—but it was a huge victory for conservative governance, in the same way that Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s acceptance of the New Deal was arguably the left’s greatest victory of the 20^th century. 

Do I think Harris will actually govern like that? Not really. Though I think odds are good she’ll try here and there. She certainly knows that she’ll be doomed if she ignores immigration and the border. 

The point is that the most likely best- and worst-case scenarios for a Harris presidency just aren’t that scary and have much more upside than the catastrophists claim. 

So, what does any of this have to do with the Ship of Theseus?

Well, that’s my most plausible worst-case scenario. I am not dismissing the concerns of people who think Trump will try to be an authoritarian strong man to pad his own conception of a legacy. I don’t think he’d be a Hitler or Mussolini—they were much cannier for starters, and America is not early 20^th century Germany or Italy. I think he’s much closer to a Juan Perón type anyway. Perón was a bad dude, but he was more interested in seeming like fascist strongman than actually doing the hard and ugly stuff. But we’re not mid-century Argentina either. 

But what I think is the most plausible—nay, likely—worst-case scenario for a Trump presidency is that current trends continue and accelerate. The definition of what it means to be a conservative has morphed before my eyes in the last decade. I grow weary having to offer examples, but it’s a necessary chore. Conservatives used to be adamant to the point of prudish sanctimony about the importance of good character. Now, to even have a problem with Trump’s boasting of sexual assault—never mind jury verdicts about the same—is to declare yourself a weak-willed cuck and snob. Free markets and free trade used to at least be ideals, even if political necessity sometimes required compromise. But the idea that planners and politicians were smarter than the market was anathema to a movement dedicated to Burke, Smith, Hayek, Sowell, Friedman, Buckley, et al. Now, “industrial policy, done right”—in Marco Rubio’s words—is all the rage. Donald Trump thinks he should pick winners and losers in the economy—from tariffs to overruling the Federal Reserve. Strong alliances were the bedrock of conservative foreign policy from Eisenhower to Bush. Defending, even if only sometimes rhetorically, freedom and democracy and denouncing tyranny was conservative dogma. Trump belittles and mocks democratic allies while fawning over strongmen everywhere. Most of all, the granite spine of modern American conservatism was fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. Donald Trump called for terminating the Constitution as needed to reinstall himself in the Oval Office based on a provable and proven lie about the election being stolen. 

I could go on. But you get the point. Trump’s most committed defenders celebrate all of this and call it conservatism. But far more people simply line up like the monkeys who see, hear, and speak no evil because in this partisan climate the only abiding political evil is to speak ill of Trump, at least in public. You can still do it in private, but it’s getting harder in part because more and more people have converted. But it’s also harder because many of the people who know the truth still don’t want to hear the truth as they shovel dirt on conservatism’s grave. They don’t enjoy emptying their shovels, but they do it in the spirit of “let’s get this unpleasantness over with. It’s got to be done to beat Kamala Harris. We’ll dig up and clean off conservatism later.”

But conservatism isn’t some gold religious icon you hide from marauders until they leave. A whole generation of young, self-described conservatives think all of this is normal, that they are real conservatives. The last thing they’re interested in is digging up the old idols and putting them back on the altars. They like the new religion. They make money and get attention from the new faith. And so do the new priests who preach it. 

Taking the long view, I do think this country is doomed without conservatism. No, I don’t mean in the apocalyptic sense I routinely decry. I mean that what makes this country great needs to be conserved. The new conservatism, despite all of its Make America Great Again rhetorical pabulum, isn’t about conserving—preserving—what is great about America, it’s about replacing conservatism with a kind of right-wing statism, which is just a fancy way of saying conventional right-wing populist nationalism. The change is sudden if you stand opposed to it, but for the partisans, it’s gradual and piecemeal enough that they don’t notice it—or choose not to. 

 I’m reminded of a story I first read about in Michael Burleigh’s outstanding The Third Reich: A New History (which I wrote about in Liberal Fascism). In 1937 the German Social Democratic Party, operating in exile in Prague, enlisted a spy to report from Germany on Nazi progress. The reporter, working in secret, offered a crucial insight into what the Nazis were really up to. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party was constructing a new religion, a “counter-church,” complete with its own priests, dogmas, holidays, rituals, and rites. The agent used a brilliant metaphor to explain the Nazi effort. The counter-church was being built like a new railway bridge. When you build a new bridge, you can’t just tear down the old one willy-nilly. Traffic and commerce will be snarled. The public will protest. Instead, you need to slowly but surely replace the bridge over time. Swap out an old bolt for a new one. Quietly switch the ancient beams for fresh ones, and one day you will have a completely different structure and barely anyone will have noticed.

No, the new conservatism isn’t Nazism, even taking Trump’s increasingly grotesque rhetoric about vermin and enemies within. But it isn’t conservatism as I know it, either. And for me the most plausible worst-case scenario is that a second Trump presidency will spell the completion of a new Theseus’ Ship of “conservatism.” 

The Golden BacheloretteThe spin-off of America’s favorite reality dating show premieres tonight with Episode 4. Wednesday, October 16 at 8pm PT/ET on ABC with the first Golden Bachelorette ever, Joan Vassos. You can watch tonight by signing up for a free trial of Fubo.

• How to watch: You can Watch The Golden Bachelorette for FREE with Fubo (free trial version) or with Hulu (free trial).

Tonight, Joan takes a helicopter ride and thinks about who she would consider as a hometown. She also enjoys a life of luxury with the men while she deals with her new feelings. Tune in live and watch for free.

Who is this season’s Golden Bachelorette?

Joan Vassos is a 61-year-old school administrator from Maryland. She appeared on the first season of The Golden Bachelor but withdrew to go home and take care of family matters. Joan earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science from the University of Maryland and was married to her husband John for 21 years until his tragic death from pancreatic cancer. Now, as the first Golden Bachelorette in the series, she is looking for a second chance at love.

What is the Golden Bachelorette?

“The Golden Bachelorette” is a spin-off of the reality television competition show “The Golden Bachelor” and “The Bachelor,” in which a man dates a house full of women in hopes of finding his soulmate. At the end of the show he has to choose a woman and propose to her. However, The Golden Bachelorette turns the tables on the senior version of the show, in which a woman in her 60s will date 24 men in search of love. Every week she gives out roses to the men she wants to keep with her until there is only one left to propose to her.

Who is the host of “The Golden Bachelorette”?

Bachelor host Jesse Palmer will also host this season of the ABC show.

Who are the remaining men?

Mark (57, Army Veteran, Leesville, LA)

Chock (60, insurance manager, Wichita, KA)

Jordan (61, sales manager, Chicago, IL)

Guy (66, emergency physician, Reno, NV)

Jonathan (61, shipping consultant, Oakland, IA)

Keith (62, friend’s father, San Jose, CA)

Pascal (69, salon owner, Chicago, IL)

Which TV channel is “The Golden Bachelorette” on?

What: The Golden Bachelorette

When: Wednesday, October 16 at 8pm PT/ET (new episodes air every Wednesday)

TV channels:ABC

Watch the show live streaming online: You can Watch The Golden Bachelor for FREE with Fubo (free trial version) or with Hulu (free trial). If you’re out of free trials, you can subscribe to DirecTV for $69.99/month to live stream the finale and enjoy access to over 60 channels.

EVANSVILLE, Ind. (WFIE) – Evansville city officials say the public can take a “twilight tour” of Oak Hill Cemetery.

They say it’s a unique opportunity to learn more about the city’s history.

There will be live reenactments of some of the most influential people buried in the cemetery and how they helped Evansville.

According to official information, the tour begins on Saturday at 5 p.m.

Tickets are $15 for adults, $10 for students and $5 for children.

Proceeds benefit the Adopt-An-Ash program. It is a group whose goal is to protect ash trees from the emerald ash borer.

Copyright 2024 WFIE. All rights reserved.

Former One Direction member Liam Payne has been under intense scrutiny from fans and others lately for several reasons. While it’s certainly difficult to learn disturbing things about the stars you once idolized, we should know by now that not everything is as it seems. As his ex-bandmates’ careers skyrocket, Liam Payne seems stuck in a cycle of controversy after controversy. His previous relationship with social media content creator Maya Henry is the latest of his woes.

Liam Payne performs “Strip That Down” at Capital Summertime Ball 2017 | Photo credit: Liam Payne Official / YouTube

Maya Henry is now opening up about her turbulent past. It may have been a gut punch to the directors who vilified Liam Payne, but the singer allegedly demanded she have an abortion without proper medical assistance just so he…

MILWAUKEE – Milwaukee police have arrested a 30-year-old man in connection with Saturday’s fatal shooting at a youth flag football game.

The shooting happened near 11th and Windlake around 1 p.m. A 47-year-old man was taken to a hospital with a life-threatening gunshot wound and later died. He has since been identified as Raysean Barnes.

SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines and breaking news emails from FOX6 News

According to the coroner’s office, the victim was shot during a flag football game. Milwaukee Public Schools said South Stadium has been evacuated due to an incident during a youth flag football game — and all other games scheduled for Saturday have been canceled.

MPD said criminal charges will be forwarded to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.