Sovereignty beats out Journalism to win the 2025 Belmont Stakes
Sovereignty reigns supreme in more than just geopolitics.
The horse with the same name won the running of the 2025 Belmont Stakes on Saturday afternoon, with Journalism finishing in second.
Journalism (5-2) and No. 2 Sovereignty (2-1) were essentially co-favorites to win the race going into the final leg of the Triple Crown at Saratoga Race Course.
Advertisement
One of the races during the 2025 Belmont Stakes on June 7, 2025.
JASON SZENES/ NY POST
Sovereignty won the Kentucky Derby, while Journalism won the Preakness Stakes in a thrilling come-from-behind finish after Sovereignty voluntarily skipped the race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using sovereignty sentiments in Alberta as a kind of implied threat to get a better deal for the province. In a letter to Mark Carney in the run-up to the recent first ministers conference in Saskatoon, Smith told the prime minister that failure to build additional pipelines for Alberta oil would 'send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa's commitment to national unity.' Accordingly, it's worth asking: what would happen if Alberta did vote to leave? Two historical touch points are the 1995 sovereignty referendum in Québec and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in 2016. In different ways, both examples drive home one inevitable point: in the event of a vote to pursue sovereignty, the future of Alberta would have to be negotiated one painful and uncertain step at a time. Sovereignty is an assertion of independent governmental authority, notably including a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a defined people and territory. Unlike provinces in a country like Canada, sovereign countries co-operate with each other if — and only if — it's in their interests to do so. Some proponents of separatism have argued that an independent Alberta could rely on international law to secure continued access to tidewater through Canada. The idea seems to form the basis of Smith's assertions that one nation cannot 'landlock' another under international law. But that's not the case. What's more, international law — even if it does apply in theory — doesn't always hold in practice. That's because between countries, formal anarchy prevails: no one has the responsibility to enforce international law on their own. If one country breaks international law, it's up to other countries to respond. If that doesn't happen, then it just doesn't happen. Simply put, if Alberta were to leave Canada, it would lose all enforceable rights and protections offered by the Canadian Constitution and enforced by the institutions and courts. In their place, Alberta would get exactly — and only — what it can bargain for. The Québec independence saga has in many ways clarified and refined the path to potential secession for provinces in Canada, and hints at what can happen in the aftermath of a sovereignty referendum. In the wake of the near miss that was the 1995 referendum — when those wanting to remain in Canada defeated those who voted to separate with the narrowest of margins — Jean Chretien's Liberal government took rapid steps to respond. Plan A focused on actions aimed at addressing Québec's grievances, not unlike Carney's quest for a national consensus to build an additional pipeline. Another course of action, known as Plan B, defined the path to secession. The federal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the legality of sovereignty. It then passed the Clarity Act, which enshrined into law Ottawa's understanding of the court's answer. The reference and act both made clear that any secession attempt could be triggered only by a 'clear majority' on a 'clear question.' The act also illuminated the stakes of secession. The preamble of the legislation, for instance, spells out that provincial sovereignty would mean the end of guaranteed Canadian citizenship for departing provincial residents. The act also lays out some of the points to be negotiated in the event of secession, 'including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.' Simply put, everything would be on the table if Albertans opted to separate. Brexit provides an example of just how painful that process can be. After voting to leave the European Union, the U.K. found itself bogged down in a difficult negotiation process that continues to this day. Political, economic and trade rights — even including the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland — have all been painfully reconstituted through complex negotiations. Despite the promises made by those who advocated in favour of Brexit, the U.K. will continue to pay in perpetuity for access to the limited EU services it still retains. The U.K. is dealing with these challenges even though it was already a sovereign state. Alberta is not. Everything between a sovereign Alberta and its neighbours would be subject to difficult negotiations, both in the initial days of an independent Albertan state and any subsequent discussions. Once independent, Alberta would be a landlocked, oil-exporting nation. It would be negotiating with Canada — and the United States, its neighbour to the south — over every aspect of its new relationship. Its borders with other provinces and territories would need be negotiated, as would the status of marginalized populations and Indigenous Peoples within Alberta. The status of lands subject to treaty — in other words, most of the province — would have to be negotiated. Indigenous Peoples themselves have already made clear they have no interest in secession and would mount a vigorous defence of Indigenous rights as they exist within Canada. After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. A new republic has no automatic claims to territory with respect to Indigenous Peoples and treaty lands. Once borders were settled, Alberta would have little leverage and would need a lot of help as a country of about 4.5 million negotiating with neighbours of 35 million in Canada and 350 million in the U.S. Who would be its allies? Nothing would be guaranteed, not Alberta's admission to the United Nations, the establishment of an Albertan currency and exchange rates, national and continental defence, the management of shared borders and citizenship rules or the terms of cross-border trade and investment. Access to Canadian ports would be at Canada's discretion, negotiated on terms Canada considered in its interests. Alberta could no more force a pipeline through Canada than through the United States. Of course, a republic of Alberta would be free to pursue deeper relations with the American republic to its south. The U.S president, however, has already made clear what would be the likely terms for free trade: accession. Here, too, there would be no guarantees. Alberta could just as easily become an American territory, with limited representation, as it could a 51st state. 'Puerto Rico North' is as possible as 'Alaska South.' Gone too would be any claims to share collective goods. Alberta's neighbours would have no incentive, for instance, to help with the inevitable post-oil clean-up, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Simply put, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada, it would truly be on its own. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stewart Prest, University of British Columbia Read more: Why Alberta's push for independence pales in comparison to Scotland's in 2014 Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here's why that's a dangerous myth Coal in Alberta: Neither public outrage nor waning global demand seem to matter to Danielle Smith Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox Facing Backlash Over Terry Bradshaw Decision at Belmont Stakes
Fox Facing Backlash Over Terry Bradshaw Decision at Belmont Stakes originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Horse racing is, unquestionably, its own kind of sport, defined as much by the pastel colors, fancy hats and overall decorum of its showcase events as much as by the beauty and grace of the horses who participate. Advertisement And so when the broadcast of this year's much-anticipated 157th Belmont Stakes, with a rematch between top 3-year-olds Journalism and Sovereignty in the offing, got rolling, there were the usual staples that racing fans have gotten accustomed to seeing. The race was held at Saratoga Race Course for the second straight year, as the track at Belmont is being overhauled, but there were familiar faces like handicapper Jonathon Kinchen, analyst/reporter Maggie Wolfendale and ex-jockey Richard Migliore. The race was being shown by Fox Sports, though, which meant the addition of outsiders like Curt Menefee and Charissa Thompson. That was mostly not objectionable. But the addition of former quarterback Terry Bradshaw--who does, in fairness, own a horse with Menefee that was running on Saturday--was a bridge too far for many racing fans. Fox leans on Bradshaw for about five months during the football season, and it seemed reasonable to keep him off this broadcast. Terry Bradshaw at Fox Sports media day at Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. Mandatory Credit: Kirby Lee-Imagn Images Author Sean Hackbarth noted on X, "NBC Sports needs the entire Triple Crown. Fox Sports is bad. Terry Bradshaw bad." Advertisement A fan added, "Can I watch the Belmont without a history lesson on Terry Bradshaw every 5 minutes?" Another lamented, "Imagine being a horse racing expert and you get your moment on TV on one of the very few days your sport gets to shine and you're ready to show your wisdom and spread love of your sport to the masses and then you're placed on equal footing to Terry Bradshaw. And still another: "Fox Sports broadcast of the Belmont is a joke with Terry Bradshaw." And it should be a good race, but still, why Bradshaw, one wondered: "The Belmont is gonna be a thriller. If I wagered, my pick would be the magnificent Journalism. But why is Fox devoting tons of screen time to ... checks notes ... Terry Bradshaw?!?" Advertisement Sometimes, too, a picture is worth 1,000 words. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘If you fall silent, the country is doomed': CBS News' Scott Pelley stresses courage as network faces pressure campaign
A climate of fear is perceptible in the United States today, and it must be resisted no matter what, CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley says. 'People are silencing themselves for fear that the government will retaliate against them, and that's not the America that we all love,' Pelley told Anderson Cooper in an exclusive interview after CNN's Saturday telecast of 'Good Night, and Good Luck.' The Broadway play, which recounts CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow's unflinching 1954 broadcasts about Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Cold War witch hunts, has stirred comparisons between McCarthyism and Trumpism, and between the CBS network then and now. Fear and courage 'are the two themes that run through both of these moments in American history,' Pelley told CNN's Cooper. 'The most important thing is to have the courage to speak, to not let fear permeate the country so that everyone suddenly becomes silent,' the former 'CBS Evening News' anchor added. 'If you have the courage to speak, we are saved. If you fall silent, the country is doomed.' Cooper asked Pelley, a nearly 40-year veteran of CBS: 'Do you still believe in journalism? Do you still believe in the role of journalists?' 'It is the only thing that's gonna save the country,' Pelley responded. 'You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can't be done.' Cooper, who also works alongside Pelley as a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' anchored a discussion about the state of journalism after the Broadway telecast Saturday night. One inescapable topic was President Donald Trump's pressure campaign against CBS News. Trump filed a legally dubious lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris last fall. CBS News journalists and executives have sought to fight the suit and its allegations of 'election interference.' But lawyers at CBS parent Paramount Global have been trying to strike a settlement with Trump, perhaps believing that such a deal will help secure the Trump administration's approval of Paramount's pending deal to merge with Skydance Media. The settlement could look like a payoff in exchange for government approval and would spark an outcry from CBS News journalists. At '60 Minutes,' 'everyone thinks this lawsuit is an act of extortion, everyone,' a network correspondent recently told CNN. When Cooper asked Pelley what Murrow would think of the state of play at CBS, Pelley said that 'he would probably be waiting to see how this lawsuit from the president works out and how the Paramount Corporation deals.' Murrow, he said, 'would be for fighting,' not settling. A settlement would be 'very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley added. 'I think many of the law firms that made deals with the White House are at this very moment regretting it. That doesn't look like their finest hour.' When asked about the April resignation of '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, Pelley repeated what he told viewers — that Owens felt that he no longer had 'the independence that honest journalism requires.' At the time, the correspondents talked about leaving with him, but Lesley Stahl recently told The New Yorker that Owens 'explicitly asked us not to resign.' Pelley told Cooper that, on the one hand, 'you really wish the company was behind you 100%, right?' On the other hand, 'my work is getting on the air.' Paramount bosses have not killed any '60 Minutes' segments, even though the newsmagazine has aggressively covered the Trump administration. 'While I would like to have that public backing,' Pelley said, 'maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air.' Pelley caused a stir with a commencement address at Wake Forest University last month. Many conservative media outlets said Pelley ripped Trump, though he never mentioned the president by name. 'Why attack universities? Why attack journalism? Because ignorance works for power,' Pelley said in the speech. 'First, make the truth seekers live in fear. Sue the journalists. For nothing.' Pelley also talked in the speech about the Trump administration's actions against major law firms and warned that people in power 'can rewrite history.' 'With grotesque, false narratives, they can make heroes criminals and criminals heroes,' Pelley said. 'And they can change the definition of the words we use to describe reality. 'Diversity' is now described as 'illegal.' 'Equity' is to be shunned. 'Inclusion' is a dirty word. This is an old playbook, my friends.' In the sit-down with Cooper, Pelley said he thought he was echoing the sentiments of Murrow in the 1950s, 'that freedom of speech is what matters in this country.' 'You can agree with the government. You can disagree with the government. But you have the right to speak no matter what your opinion is. If the government begins to punish our citizens because of what they have to say, then our country's gone terribly wrong.' As for the furor over his commencement speech, Pelley remarked, 'what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?'
