'I expect to die this summer': Cartoonist Scott Adams reveals prostate cancer diagnosis, same as Joe Biden
Cartoonist
, who created the comic strip Dilbert, revealed on Monday he has been diagnosed with the same aggressive
as ex-US President Joe Biden.
'I have the same cancer Joe Biden has.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
So, I also have prostate cancer which has also spread to my bones," Adams disclosed during an episode of his YouTube show, Real Coffee with Scott Adams.
The 67-year-old made the announcement after extending his 'respect and compassion and sympathy' for Biden and the former president's family. Biden announced his diagnosis on Sunday and stated he and his family are reviewing treatment options with his doctors.
"I am always in pain, use a walker to get around and expect to die sometime this summer.
The pain basically intolerable," Adams said.
He added that he has had time to process his cancer diagnosis, and time to say goodbyes, get his affairs in order and do all the things he needed to do.
Dilbert comic strip
Dilbert first appeared in 1989, poking fun at office culture. It ran for decades in numerous newspapers but disappeared with lightning speed in 2023 following "racist" remarks by Adams.
On his YouTube show at the time, among other things, he described Black people as a 'hate group' and said he would no longer 'help Black Americans.'
Later, he stated he was being "hyperbolic," yet continued to defend his stance.
Various media publishers across the US denounced the comments as racist, hateful and discriminatory while saying they would no longer provide a platform for his work.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
War in Middle East: what next
As of June 15, Israel and Iran have exchanged four waves of strikes. Among a number of targets hit by either side, Israel's assassination of key Iranian generals on June 13 remains the most prominent outcome thus far. Also, Israel targeted the Iranian Supreme Leader's office by assassinating Ali Shamkhani, political adviser to Ali Khamenei and key overseer of the US-Iran nuclear talks. Israel is expected to continue its escalation, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Sunday afternoon issued warnings in Persian to Iranian civilians to leave military weapons production facilities. What does Israel look to achieve? Israel's June 13 attack on Iran was unprecedented in scale and scope relative to any attack on Iran since the Iran-Iraq war. However, as far as Israel's long-term objective of dismantling Iran's nuclear programme is concerned, its attacks have been limited. In a silo, Israel's actions technically reinforce US President Donald Trump's immediate bargaining position vis-à-vis Iran in the nuclear deal negotiations, by hindering short-term progress on Iran's nuclear programme. Consequently, the US President has demanded that Iran resume talks to prevent further conflict, especially since Iranian 'hardliners' relevant to the nuclear negotiations are now dead. Trump continues to maintain that Israel's actions were unilateral, despite admittedly knowing Israel's war plans. But Israel is yet to effectively hit Iran's Fordow and Khondab nuclear sites; Fordow is fully underground and central to Iran's nuclear programme. While Israel's strike on the Natanz enrichment facility was its first overt action at this scale, the plant has long been subject to Israeli sabotage operations. Israeli experts, such as former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, continually assert that neither Israeli nor American military action can eliminate Iran's nuclear programme. Israel's claims of Iran's closeness to a nuclear weapon have been repeated across the decades and contradict both American and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessments. Hence, Israel's two other objectives — as an assessment by British think tank Chatham House also shows — are to degrade Iranian defences and take out its operational leadership. While Israel will arguably need greater US involvement to effectively hit sites such as Fordow, its focus on Iranian personnel and conventional assets reveal that it is prepared for a slow-burn war with Iran. Israel's actions seem to be based on two assumptions — that all Iranian retaliation can be successfully absorbed, and that with each hit, Iran becomes weaker. What does this mean for Iran? Tactically and objectively, Israel's assessment of Iran's weaknesses has been vindicated insofar as the security of key Iranian personnel is concerned. However, notwithstanding Iran's broader conventional inferiority to Israel, Tehran has shown an ability to reciprocate Israeli attacks at a smaller scale. For instance, after Israel's attack on Iran's Asaluyeh refinery and South Pars gas fields, Iran successfully targeted the Bazan oil refinery (Israel's largest) in Haifa — crucial to the IDF's fuel needs. Iran moved to the negotiating table with the US under moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian to give its economy relief from crippling sanctions, something that hardline leaders only acquiesced to. Now, the nature and scale of the Israeli attack would allow the conservative leaders, who dominate the Iranian Parliament, to create fresh pressures on any reformist action. Also, the attack coming in the midst of US-Iran negotiations will reinforce a core constituency that views the US as a duplicitous negotiator. Calls for regime change in Iran by Israeli and American leaders deepens the mistrust that has grown since the CIA's removal of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It will also be a mistake to assume that Iranian hardliners have lost influence over the nuclear deal. Key hardline leaders like Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (Speaker of the Iranian Parliament) remain influential in matters of national security. Washington's openness to continuing negotiations is immaterial to Iran, which also remains in favour of resuming talks, but only after Israel halts its attacks. For Iran, Israel's assassination of a senior leader involved with the negotiations — Ali Shamkhani — further betrays Israel's intentions to sabotage the talks, and not merely act as Washington's force multiplier. What are Iran's choices? International reactions to Israel's aggression have varied. European and American reactions have focused on the dangers of Iran's nuclear programme, while not acknowledging Israel's provocations. On the other hand, regional reactions from the Gulf have shown an evolution. Iran's Gulf Arab neighbours have shifted from forming an integral part of Israel's air defence net against Iranian missiles to condemning Israeli aggression and demanding respect for Iranian sovereignty. In fact, arch regional rival Riyadh has expressed 'strong condemnation' of Israeli action, which it views as an aggression against a 'brotherly Islamic Republic'. However, Israel's attack has pushed Iran towards an impasse. On one hand, it increases Iran's need to resuscitate its pursuit of a nuclear weapon — renewed learning from contemporary conflicts is that the absence of a nuclear deterrent invites military adventurism from adversaries. On the other hand, Iran's lack of sufficient modern arms, Israel's degradation of its existing capabilities, its increasing leadership losses (both at home and in the Axis of Resistance), and the worsening of its economic health force a pragmatic approach. Even if Iran is capable of nuclear break-out, it would be difficult to achieve amid the evidently high level of intelligence penetration in the country. Significantly, Iran has still not targeted US diplomatic and military infrastructure, directly or through its proxies. The most prominent among these continue their pre-June modus vivendi — the Houthis maintain their ceasefire with the United States (while continuing attacks on Israel), Hezbollah adheres to its ceasefire, and the Hashd in Iraq refrains from substantially attacking the Green Zone in Baghdad, where US diplomats and officials are concentrated. While this could change in the future, Iran has also likely engaged regional interlocutors to press for an end to the war. Israel has the capacity to continue strikes on Iran for as long as it deems necessary. However, its maximal objectives cannot be met without a full-scale war involving the United States, which would be in stark contrast to Trump's stated objectives and reinforce his failure to strike a peace deal both in Europe and the Middle East. For Iran, absorbing a few large holes in the dam is better than a complete breach. Tehran can also look to counter Israel's objectives by continuing its engagement with the US for a nuclear deal and making voluntary concessions, instead of those forced on it militarily. Given that Israel's casus belli is unclear and that its objectives remain maximal, it is difficult to ascertain Tel Aviv's future course of action, making Iran's consequent choices similarly unpredictable. However, amidst these choices, what is highly unlikely is Iran's forced closure of the Strait of Hormuz (33 km wide at its narrowest point). While Iran has the capacity to enforce a very limited blockade (as it has threatened in 2011, 2012, and 2018), disrupting the 20 million barrels-per-day flow through the Strait will rupture Tehran's partnerships, end its rapprochement with Arab states, and draw in the US military. The US is likeliest to act militarily when protecting shipping and oil supply, as it did during the Iran-Iraq War historically, and in the Red Sea more recently, after the Houthi-led disruption of shipping in the region. Bashir Ali Abbas is a Senior Research Associate at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, New Delhi
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Carney to meet Trump in Alberta as G7 summit begins with trade, tariffs, and security talks on the table
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Calgary on Sunday(June 15), stepping into the international spotlight as he prepares to host his first G7 Leaders' Summit, with a one-on-one meeting with US President Donald Trump first on the agenda on Monday morning (June 16). Carney reaches Calgary Welcomed at the airport by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek, Carney appeared calm, accompanied by his wife Diana Fox Carney, ahead of the two-day summit in the resort town of Kananaskis. But the mood behind the scenes is far from relaxed. Also read: Guest list for G7 summit tells of global challenges Live Events Carney's scheduled 9 am sit-down with Trump will be his most delicate diplomatic test to date. While the two have held informal talks in recent weeks, they remain divided on a key sticking point, including Trump's doubling of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. In an interview on The West Block, Canada-US Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc admitted progress was "not fast enough" and warned retaliatory action may follow. "Our hope was that we would have made more progress before the president arrives," LeBlanc said. "If we conclude that we're not close to a deal, the country will look at further measures." Carney, a former central banker with stints at the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, is widely respected for his economic acumen. However, diplomacy, especially with a volatile partner like Trump, is a different game altogether. Brian Clow, a former Trudeau advisor, said bluntly: 'You've got to go in with a plan. Trump respects strength, but he's unpredictable.' Trump, arriving late Sunday after staging a military parade in Washington, hinted at new trade deals but offered no specifics. 'All we have to do is send a letter that says, 'This is what you'll pay,'' he said before departing. Other key issues and countries attending the summit Beyond Canada-US tensions, the summit is overshadowed by deepening conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, with both crises topping the agenda. Carney has invited leaders from India, South Korea, Brazil, and South Africa, signaling a broader global ambition. According to the official G7 schedule, Monday's working sessions will center on global economic and security issues, while Tuesday will include a dedicated session on energy security. Mark Carney met British Prime Minister Keir Starmer Earlier in Ottawa, Carney met British Prime Minister Keir Starmer , signing joint defence, AI, and cybersecurity agreements. The two leaders watched the Oilers-Panthers NHL game together. 'I've learned a lot from the Prime Minister,' Starmer said. 'His values are those we'll be promoting at this summit.' FAQs Who are the members of the G7? The Group of Seven (G7) includes Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The European Union also participates in the meetings as a non-enumerated member. When was the G7 formed? The G7 was originally formed in 1975 as the G6 by France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States to coordinate global economic policy during the oil crisis. Canada joined in 1976, becoming the G7. Where was the last G7 Summit held, and who hosted it? The 2024 G7 Summit was hosted by Italy in the region of Apulia (Puglia) from June 13–15, 2024. Key issues included the war in Ukraine, global food security, AI regulation, and economic stability. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
Deccan Herald
4 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
The other war: Fighting fake news
India's latest four-day border clash with Pakistan, designated 'Operation Sindoor' in May, saw more than missiles and drones crossing the Line of Control. It also witnessed a parallel, invisible war playing out in the information sphere, across social media platforms and mainstream news outlets. .The news media, a powerful tool for discourse, can also be weaponised for propaganda, censorship, and even direct involvement in conflicts. Information warfare involves the use of propaganda or politically slanted half-truths, as governments and military forces attempt to shape public opinion, promote their narratives, and justify their actions. Censorship often accompanies this effort—especially in wartime—when States may restrict media access, suppress critical reporting, or control the flow of information. Equally significant are the ways in which stories are 'framed' — through language, visuals, and cited sources — to influence public perception and opinions on the outcome of military a first, Karnataka cops to deploy agentic AI to combat fake warfare undermines the very basis of good journalism: credibility. While the media's role is to report and analyse current events for the public, including newspapers, television, radio, and online platforms, its relationship with war is complex. It doesn't merely observe; it influences. It shapes public perception, steers political discourse, and even impacts military strategies. .US academic and Pakistan Studies specialist Christine Fair states, 'The highly polarised and nationalistic nature of the information space on such topics in both countries means that few official statements can be relied on at face value, and disinformation has been used to flood social media on both sides.'.Across platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, verified accounts played a central role in this information warfare. Information did not simply circulate—it metastasised. On X, of 437 misleading posts, only 73 were flagged. This implies that the vast majority remained unchecked, spreading fake news. The information warfare attempted to mislead and demoralise the citizens on both sides of the South Asian political and ideological divide, using doctored videos and false imagery of supposed enemy air strikes—often borrowed from unrelated Indian officials were still pondering over their response to the crisis, Pakistan's political leadership had already reached out to international media. For instance, within 48 hours of the terror attack in Pahalgam, Pakistani cabinet ministers like Ishaq Dar, Khawaja Asif, Attaullah Tarar and PPP chief Bilawal Bhutto had given over 25 interviews to major global channels. .In a democracy, the principle of 'right to information' often clashes with the demands of national interest. Citizens naturally want to know: How many IAF aircraft were lost? How many Indian soldiers were killed? However, in any military operation, truth is often the first casualty. All belligerent nations practise information modern warfare, military operations and digital propaganda operate in tandem. Disinformation is not an adjunct to war but a part of it. The media must stop treating platforms as neutral sources. Fact-checking must be integrated into the editorial process. Journalists need new protocols for digital verification, particularly during crises. Information warfare is designed to destabilise, provoke, polarise, and obstruct rational policy making. Credibility remains the crucial element. Lies succeed when they are loaded with some truth.. As citizens, we must ask ourselves: Are we being fed truth, or simply someone else's version of it? With so many competing narratives, we need to ask ourselves if the war is over or if the real conflict, the one for our minds, is just transparency and the 'Fog of War' do not go together. Operation Sindoor and its Pakistani version, 'Operation Bunyan al Marsous' (Wall of Lead), had only two belligerent nations, India and Pakistan, in the kinetic war. However, in the information sphere, there were several participants — Turkey, China and Malaysia, and Western industrial democracies. .Pakistan's information warfare apart, Indian television headlines screamed: 'Indian Navy Destroys Karachi Port!' 'General Asim Munir Arrested After Coup!' 'Indian Army Takes Over Islamabad!' As a democracy, the Indian news media should not lose its credibility, which differentiates it from Pakistan, where the political and military leadership muzzles the media. The Indian news media cannot afford to become a weapon of mass deception..(The writer is a member secretary at the Institute of Contemporary Studies Bangalore, a security studies think tank)
