Latest news with #Anti-Israel
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Landsman: 'I have a hard time getting the image of being shot and killed out of my head'
(Editor's note: The following is a statement released Wednesday, May 28, 2025, by Congressman Greg Landsman (D-OH-01) concerning the two Israeli Embassy staff members who were shot and killed outside a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. last week. The statement has been edited for clarity.) Last week, outside the Capital Jewish Museum, two innocent young people were executed. For many of us, this was deeply personal and profoundly unsettling. First, let me be as honest and as personal as it gets. I have had a hard time getting the image of being shot and killed out of my head. It happens almost every time I'm in a big crowd now. More: What is the Capital Jewish Museum? What to know about site of fatal DC shooting Last Saturday at a rally back home, I decided not to have police protection. Standing in a crowd talking to constituents, I had the most vivid image: All of a sudden, I saw myself on the ground, dead from a gunshot. This is what actually happened a few days later to Yaron Lischinsky and his girlfriend Sarah Milgrim. Anti-Israel protesters have followed me around for the past year and a half. They don't just protest. They get in my face, screaming about the "genocide" I'm causing. They threaten me and my family. "You will pay for this," they say. They slept outside our house for days. Many other Jewish members of Congress and local advocates who have also been vocal about Israel and the war deal with similar safety issues. Some members have constant police protection when they're home. We worry about being on Capitol Hill, too. Without going into specific security concerns, we know that what happened to Yaron and Sarah could happen to one of us as we move around the Capitol. We think about it every time we leave our offices, leave a committee hearing, or cross the street. To be clear, most of the protestors aren't violent. They hate the war and the suffering of innocent people. I hate the war and the suffering of innocent people. Most just want Palestinians to be safe and healthy, and to be in a position to rebuild. They want self-governance and self-determination for Palestinians. I do too. So, how does someone execute two innocent people outside of a Jewish event in D.C. about supporting humanitarian diplomacy in the Middle East? One answer is that what happened last Wednesday is similar to the outrageous murder of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a 6-year-old Palestinian-American child outside of Chicago in 2023. "Otherization" is very real and refers to the process of treating a person or group as different and alien, and it can lead to marginalization, exclusion and murder. The tragedy of war throughout the globe should never lead to violence against its diaspora communities. We allow people to "otherize" and demonize folks, and we forget to appreciate that it often turns violent. Everyone has to do a better job of ensuring disagreements don't lead to this disturbing and dangerous process. A second explanation has to do with blood libels, which are core to understanding antisemitism. A blood libel is a lie about Jews killing innocent people, usually children. Ancient in its form, it spreads, Jew hate follows, and usually, Jews are killed. What happened to Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, was barbaric. Kidnapping Israelis, holding them hostage in Hamas tunnels, some of whom were executed, is also barbaric. The war in Gaza against Hamas has also been awful. Hamas cannot remain in power. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are safe with Hamas in power. But innocent Gazans have been killed in this war. It's terrible, and I want this war to end. I'll continue to push for a ceasefire that brings every hostage home and a surge in humanitarian aid. Israel has gone after Hamas, and because of the tunnels and Hamas's tactic of using civilians as human shields, innocent people and children have been killed. Israel has gone after Hezbollah in Lebanon, too, and there have been very few civilian casualties. The difference is Hamas. Hezbollah allows civilians to flee. Some people have convinced themselves that Israelis are genocidal and evil; that Jews associated with and supportive of Israel are also genocidal and evil. That's a blood libel, and it's been spreading like wildfire for 18 months. I believe it's why Yaron and Sarah were executed. The antisemitism bill that has stalled in the Senate would help. It establishes a definition that would be profoundly informative for people. It offers education and training. The bill doesn't say it's antisemitic if you criticize the policies of Israel. Israelis criticize the policies of Israel. But denying Jews self-determination is seen by some as antisemitic, including me. Denying Palestinians self-determination is anti-Palestinian. More: Pope Leo calls for ceasefire in Gaza, laments 'cries' of parents of dead children President Donald Trump's actions on campuses have not helped. Some campuses have become hotbeds of antisemitism, but his actions could have a chilling effect on speech. Colleges that explained to students the difference between free speech and hate speech, and the difference between protest and chaos, and held their students accountable accordingly, did well. They protect speech and their students. It was pretty straightforward. To fight antisemitism, we should pass the antisemitism bill and have colleges work with groups like the American Jewish Committee (AJC). The AJC and similar groups partner with organizations on how to identify and combat antisemitism without infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides to stop politicizing this. Our safety and well-being are at stake, and antisemitism should be a nonpartisan, noncontroversial issue. The same must be true for all forms of hate. Fighting hate should be nonpartisan and noncontroversial. Those protesting the war, even the policies of Israel, should be intentional not to slip into blood libels and violent rhetoric. That requires some learning as to what would be considered a blood libel and violent. I understand the desire for this war to end and for Gazans to be free. I hope people understand that Israelis and Jews desperately want security for themselves and their neighbors. They want peace. Either way, we should all advocate for what we believe in − and do so peacefully and without violence or hate. We should also commit ourselves to being the generation that achieves a sustainable peace in the Middle East. It's not inevitable, nor is it impossible. It's up to us and others to fight for it. U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman, a Democrat, represents Ohio's 1st Congressional House District and is a former Cincinnati councilman. He has traveled to Israel and the Middle East over a dozen times, including four times in his first term as a member of Congress. Landsman also worked in Israel from 2015-2020, prior to becoming a member of Congress, supporting philanthropic efforts. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Shooting at Jewish museum in DC fueled by hate, demonization | Opinion
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump is waging war on colleges
President Trump often seems to pick fights with anybody who has ever criticized or opposed him. But sometimes there's a method to the hostility. Trump's war with elite universities may have started as a personal vendetta. Some people who know Trump say he resents Ivy League elitists who have never given him an honorary degree or invited him to deliver a commencement speech. Though Trump himself graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, multiple bankruptcies undermine his own claim to be a highly educated business hotshot. Permissive cultural environments at many universities have fueled Trump's 'war on wokeness.' Anti-Israel protests on several campuses after the 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel perplexed many Americans who wondered why the protesting students seemed morally one-sided. All of that made elite schools fatter targets for Trump. But there are also legitimate socioeconomic questions about government policies that confer massive privileges on universities and their students while broadly overlooking millions of Americans who never go to college. Many policy experts think the federal government oversubsidizes college education through federally guaranteed student loans that are easy to take out but often hard to repay. Cheap financing probably drives up the cost of a college education by boosting demand, contributing to debt loads that are an overwhelming burden for millions of borrowers. Neglect of the working class, meanwhile, is the very thing that fueled Trump's rise and helped get him elected president, twice. It's possible to get student loans for trade schools and other forms of non-college education, but if anything, the US has done a poor job of helping prepare young Americans not bound for college for rewarding careers that are there for the taking with only the right skills and focus. Trump has a knack for identifying and capitalizing on problems other politicians overlook and then overplaying his hand and proposing lousy solutions. On trade, for example, there's a strong case for rebuilding some domestic manufacturing capacity in key industries, as Trump insists. But Trump's tariffs are a terrible way to go about it, because those import taxes punish Americans first and leave the US economy weaker, on net, according to most mainstream economists. Likewise, there's a solid premise adjacent to Trump's war on the college class: that the US needs to invest more in working-class Americans not headed to college. Trump's call to invest more federal funding in trade schools, for instance, echoes many other calls to boost worker training in the many trades where there aren't enough skilled workers. There's already a shortage of hundreds of thousands of welders, carpenters, electricians, and other skilled workers, according to McKinsey. Federal aid with that sort of training would actually be a much better idea than imposing new tariffs on imports, because it would help working-class Americans without punishing anybody. As usual, however, one good idea is likely to get lost amid Trump's braggadocio and the collateral damage of his cultural warfare. Trump hasn't proposed any kind of rational plan to boost the kind of worker training the US economy needs. He only wants to direct new funding toward trade schools because that would be $3 billion in federal grants he would block Harvard from receiving. Trade schools would only benefit to the extent that Trump is able to punish Harvard and any other school whose federal funds he wants to redirect. Trump has a much bigger war plan on the table in his battle with the college establishment. His Republican allies in the House of Representatives have passed a proposal that would sharply raise the tax on investment income earned at universities with the largest endowments, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and several others. It's not clear if the Senate will approve the plan, but if it does, top schools will be in a scramble to protect their biggest source of wealth. Trump has targeted Harvard in particular. He has moved to cancel $3.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, mostly for medical research. He has also tried to cancel $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard and block foreign students from attending. The university is suing, and courts will determine how much unilateral action Trump can get away with. Courts, so far, have overturned many of his executive Trump, the battle against elite institutions is often the whole point. Electoral politics explains why. Non-college-educated working-class voters, especially whites, are Trump's core constituency. Barack Obama in 2012 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of working-class voters. From 2012 to 2024, those voters swung from Obama's Democrats to Trump's Republicans by 12 percentage points. White working-class voters favored Republicans by 20 points in 2012 and 27 points in 2024. Those non-college-educated Americans accounted for 59% of voters in 2024. Few of those voters, who broadly favor Trump, will feel put off by Trump's attacks on universities, and many of them will approve. For Trump, politically, elite universities are a very safe target. The more important question, however, may be whether Trump's broadside against the university set will do anything to materially help those who don't go to college. Probably not. Trump tweeting about moving Harvard money to trade schools doesn't make it happen. Without follow-up, legislation, and implementation, ideas go nowhere. Trump's main idea isn't to help tradespeople, anyway. They only factor into his plans as a by-product of how he might be able to punish Harvard. Read more: Will I be taxed on student loan forgiveness? President Biden had a very different approach to education, which arguably failed, contributing to the identity crisis that still plagues Biden's Democrats. Biden sided fully with college grads and tried to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for some 26 million borrowers. The Supreme Court struck that down, and Biden attempted a succession of smaller, more targeted efforts to cancel specific types of debt. That hodgepodge of plans ended up reducing debt for something like 5 million borrowers. Policy experts don't love student debt cancellation, which by definition helps people with college education while doing nothing for less-educated Americans who might benefit more from federal benefits. Voters don't love it either, according to the polls. And in the 2024 presidential election, Democrats lost a lot of ground with younger voters who might be most likely to support debt cancellation. Trump, who fashions himself the anti-Biden, has halted Biden's student debt relief effort. Again, that may prove popular with his base without necessarily helping anybody. Trump, meanwhile, has the kernel of an idea to improve on the Biden plan by helping working-class Americans land blue-collar jobs that provide a rewarding career. Hammering Harvard, however, won't make it happen. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump is waging war on colleges
President Trump often seems to pick fights with anybody who has ever criticized or opposed him. But sometimes there's a method to the hostility. Trump's war with elite universities may have started as a personal vendetta. Some people who know Trump say he resents Ivy League elitists who have never given him an honorary degree or invited him to deliver a commencement speech. Though Trump himself graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, multiple bankruptcies undermine his own claim to be a highly educated business hotshot. Permissive cultural environments at many universities have fueled Trump's 'war on wokeness.' Anti-Israel protests on several campuses after the 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel perplexed many Americans who wondered why the protesting students seemed morally one-sided. All of that made elite schools fatter targets for Trump. But there are also legitimate socioeconomic questions about government policies that confer massive privileges on universities and their students while broadly overlooking millions of Americans who never go to college. Many policy experts think the federal government oversubsidizes college education through federally guaranteed student loans that are easy to take out but often hard to repay. Cheap financing probably drives up the cost of a college education by boosting demand, contributing to debt loads that are an overwhelming burden for millions of borrowers. Neglect of the working class, meanwhile, is the very thing that fueled Trump's rise and helped get him elected president, twice. It's possible to get student loans for trade schools and other forms of non-college education, but if anything, the US has done a poor job of helping prepare young Americans not bound for college for rewarding careers that are there for the taking with only the right skills and focus. Trump has a knack for identifying and capitalizing on problems other politicians overlook and then overplaying his hand and proposing lousy solutions. On trade, for example, there's a strong case for rebuilding some domestic manufacturing capacity in key industries, as Trump insists. But Trump's tariffs are a terrible way to go about it, because those import taxes punish Americans first and leave the US economy weaker, on net, according to most mainstream economists. Likewise, there's a solid premise adjacent to Trump's war on the college class: that the US needs to invest more in working-class Americans not headed to college. Trump's call to invest more federal funding in trade schools, for instance, echoes many other calls to boost worker training in the many trades where there aren't enough skilled workers. There's already a shortage of hundreds of thousands of welders, carpenters, electricians, and other skilled workers, according to McKinsey. Federal aid with that sort of training would actually be a much better idea than imposing new tariffs on imports, because it would help working-class Americans without punishing anybody. As usual, however, one good idea is likely to get lost amid Trump's braggadocio and the collateral damage of his cultural warfare. Trump hasn't proposed any kind of rational plan to boost the kind of worker training the US economy needs. He only wants to direct new funding toward trade schools because that would be $3 billion in federal grants he would block Harvard from receiving. Trade schools would only benefit to the extent that Trump is able to punish Harvard and any other school whose federal funds he wants to redirect. Trump has a much bigger war plan on the table in his battle with the college establishment. His Republican allies in the House of Representatives have passed a proposal that would sharply raise the tax on investment income earned at universities with the largest endowments, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and several others. It's not clear if the Senate will approve the plan, but if it does, top schools will be in a scramble to protect their biggest source of wealth. Trump has targeted Harvard in particular. He has moved to cancel $3.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, mostly for medical research. He has also tried to cancel $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard and block foreign students from attending. The university is suing, and courts will determine how much unilateral action Trump can get away with. Courts, so far, have overturned many of his executive Trump, the battle against elite institutions is often the whole point. Electoral politics explains why. Non-college-educated working-class voters, especially whites, are Trump's core constituency. Barack Obama in 2012 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of working-class voters. From 2012 to 2024, those voters swung from Obama's Democrats to Trump's Republicans by 12 percentage points. White working-class voters favored Republicans by 20 points in 2012 and 27 points in 2024. Those non-college-educated Americans accounted for 59% of voters in 2024. Few of those voters, who broadly favor Trump, will feel put off by Trump's attacks on universities, and many of them will approve. For Trump, politically, elite universities are a very safe target. The more important question, however, may be whether Trump's broadside against the university set will do anything to materially help those who don't go to college. Probably not. Trump tweeting about moving Harvard money to trade schools doesn't make it happen. Without follow-up, legislation, and implementation, ideas go nowhere. Trump's main idea isn't to help tradespeople, anyway. They only factor into his plans as a by-product of how he might be able to punish Harvard. Read more: Will I be taxed on student loan forgiveness? President Biden had a very different approach to education, which arguably failed, contributing to the identity crisis that still plagues Biden's Democrats. Biden sided fully with college grads and tried to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for some 26 million borrowers. The Supreme Court struck that down, and Biden attempted a succession of smaller, more targeted efforts to cancel specific types of debt. That hodgepodge of plans ended up reducing debt for something like 5 million borrowers. Policy experts don't love student debt cancellation, which by definition helps people with college education while doing nothing for less-educated Americans who might benefit more from federal benefits. Voters don't love it either, according to the polls. And in the 2024 presidential election, Democrats lost a lot of ground with younger voters who might be most likely to support debt cancellation. Trump, who fashions himself the anti-Biden, has halted Biden's student debt relief effort. Again, that may prove popular with his base without necessarily helping anybody. Trump, meanwhile, has the kernel of an idea to improve on the Biden plan by helping working-class Americans land blue-collar jobs that provide a rewarding career. Hammering Harvard, however, won't make it happen. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
New York Post
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Kehlani makes anti-Israel statement on AMAs 2025 red carpet weeks after Central Park concert was canceled
Anti-Israel singer Kehlani has doubled down on her controversial comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict just weeks after New York City pulled the plug on her Central Park concert. The 5-time Grammy nominee, who walked the red carpet at the 2025 American Music Awards Monday night, didn't mince words when asked about her stance on the ongoing clash. 'It shouldn't be a hard thing, it shouldn't be something I'm even looked at so massively for, it shouldn't be something I'm credited for,' the 'After Hours' singer, 30, told Variety ahead of the awards show. Advertisement 5 Anti-Israel singer Kehlani has doubled down on her controversial comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict. FilmMagic 'It should be second nature if people are blowing up and being murdered at mass rates, it should be no — it should be as easy as breathing to say, 'Hey I don't really think this should be happening, this shouldn't be happening, maybe we should stop.'' 'We're funding it so we should stop,' the singer, born Kehlani Ashley Parrish, said in Las Vegas, referring to the US' support for Israel. Advertisement When asked if celebrities should be vocal about their stance on the issue, the 'Can I?' singer said, 'Yeah, I said it a bunch.' 'I definitely think we have more power than we think and everything's stronger in numbers, and I think that that's something that hopefully people will understand at some point,' she went on. 'But all I can say is free Palestine.' Advertisement Earlier this month, The Post revealed that NYC officials scrapped Kehlani's upcoming Central Park performance after mounting pressure from City Hall. 5 The 5-time Grammy nominee walked the red carpet at the 2025 American Music Awards Monday night. Penske Media via Getty Images 5 Musician Kehlani stands in front of a Palestinian flag in a music video. Kehiani/Youtube 'We strongly and emphatically believe in artistic expression of all kinds,' the City Park's Foundation, a taxpayer-funded organization, said in a statement on Instagram. Advertisement 'However, the safety and security of our guests and artists is of the utmost importance and in light of these concerns, the concert has been cancelled.' The news appeared to get to the singer last, as she revealed on her Instagram Story that she found out of the show's cancellation through social media. 'Lol,' she began. 'I just found that one out on Instagram by the way.' 5 New York City earlier this month cancelled Kehlani's scheduled concert in Central Park. 5 The Post's cover on the outrage over Kehlani's planned concert at Cornell. 'I'm so deeply grounded in my purpose, my mission, my art, my contribution. Back to this album,' she added. Weeks prior, Cornell University also pulled the plug on Kehlani's campus performance after facing overwhelming backlash over the decision to host her.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘You' Star Charlotte Ritchie Is Making Boss Moves Only
[This story contains spoilers from season five, including the series finale, 'Finale.'] Charlotte Ritchie not only got to unlock a new version of herself in the fifth and final season of You but also a new version of her character Kate Lockwood. More from The Hollywood Reporter Martin Scorsese to Produce Pope Francis Doc 'Aldeas - A New Story' Kneecap Concerts Canceled In Germany Following Anti-Israel Statements at Coachella Oliver Stone Looks Back at the Fall of Saigon 50 Years Later: "We're Back to Learning Nothing" (Exclusive) The 35-year-old English actress, also known for her roles on Fresh Meat, Call the Midwife and Ghosts, learns something new from each project she takes on after inadvertently manifesting her career when she was younger. 'In the past, I've been very coy. I never wanted to say I wanted to be an actress,' she explains to The Hollywood Reporter. 'But then I found a diary from when I was about 10 that literally says all over the front cover, 'I want to be an actress.' So I obviously did, and I've just decided to curate this version of myself that's so much more humble.' As for Ritchie's character Kate, one of Joe Goldberg's (Penn Badgley) love interests in You seasons four and five, humble would probably not be the best way to describe her. In the fifth and final season of the hit Netflix series, Kate, now the CEO of her father's company, goes from agreeing to let Joe kill her uncle to leading an effort to take down the charismatic killer — a power switch-up that Ritchie enjoyed playing into. 'I stopped judging her a bit in the space between the two [seasons],' she says. 'I started liking her more and I feel like there was an opportunity in this [season] to see a different side of her, and that felt really satisfying because we only got to see her crack kind of at the end of [season] four and she's still so serious. So it's really satisfying to open her up and and and let that happen.' Below, Ritchie opens up about that epic final season of You and the scene she's most proud of, showing a new side of Kate, overcoming her biggest challenges and her dream project. *** How did this final season of feel different than , your first season with the show? It felt so different in so many ways. I was away from home, and something changes about not having your routine or your comforts of the people you usually have around you. I had a couple of lovely friends here in New York, but broadly it was like starting afresh and having time to kind of really focus on the work in a way that sometimes is harder when you have your life going on. There's also something about the spirit of New York; the energy of the city, the go-getting, inspiring nature, the way the crew work — I found that really refreshing and lovely. I also got to know Kate and I think I stopped judging her a bit in the space between the two [seasons]. I started liking her more and I feel like there was an opportunity in this [season] to see a different side of her, and that felt really satisfying because we only got to see her crack kind of at the end of [season] four and she's still so serious. So it's really satisfying to open her up and and and let that happen. Kate shows just how much of a boss she is this season, willing to risk her life to take down Joe (Penn Badgley). What was it like playing into that power? She lets in a lot more emotions this [season]. She lets them happen to her more, she lets herself feel more, which is really fun to play. There's one scene where she takes Joe to task. He's been caught on camera doing this stuff and she's just at her end. There's a line where she says, 'Were you always this obvious?' And there's this kind of depth of realization and this total abandon of any feeling for him. While I was doing it, I felt this infuriation at this character who was consistently revered and loved. He constantly gets away with the worst stuff and I suddenly felt so angry. I know he's not real, but on behalf of anybody that comes into contact with these people who manage to manipulate their way through. So Kate gets to express a lot of that anger and outrage. But unlike so many people, she has the protection of her money and her power, and she's so lucky that she has that structure around her. There's a force that she can go at him with, there's no risk. What was going through your head when you first read in the script that Kate would have a lapse in judgment at the beginning of the season, teaming up with Joe to kill her uncle? We watched the episode with a lot of the fans, and there's a real enjoyment for them at seeing them both slide into this pattern again. There is a kind of enjoyment of all the transgression that is obviously a big part of what the show is. But I feel like it's so disappointing for Kate. I think it's important that we see she has that in her, that she has that instinct, as well as Joe. Hers is a bit more distant, more bureaucratic. She gets other people to do her dirty work, which in its own way is very cowardly, but it means she can live with it a bit more. I think it's important we know she is fighting something internally. She's not suddenly this moralistic person. She has all the instincts to do the dirty work, to get this done, to off people — because it's convenient to put yourself first. It sets up the stakes for her moral quandary a bit more, because we know she's not just suddenly on this positive path. She really has it in her to be bad like him. Were you worried that Kate was potentially going to get killed this season, and what was your reaction to learning she survives and gets to reunite with [Joe's son] Henry (Frankie DeMaio) in the end? I was really happy. The weeks leading up to getting episodes nine and 10, I didn't know what her fate was going to be. There were rumors that she either lived or died, and there was a moment in makeup where I think Penn thought at one point she didn't survive, or maybe he was referencing the fight, but he was like, 'Are you sad?' I was like, 'What do you mean sad? Sad about what?' He was like, 'What do you mean, what do you mean?' I was like, 'What are you talking about?' And he was like, 'No, no, I'm just… I'm just talking, are you sad that you've got a late lunch?' I was like, 'Oh my gosh, she dies, she dies! I can't believe this!' And he was like, 'No, I don't know, it might not be true.' So I was carrying this not knowing. I really wanted to know how it happened, whatever it was, I just wanted to know, but I have to say I'm so pleased. I think the way that Marcos [Siega] directed that fire scene between Joe and Kate and the writing of that is so pitch perfect. I feel like that was such a great final out for her, not quite final, but yeah. There was something almost calm about that final moment and dialogue between Kate and Joe in episode nine, 'Trial of the Furies.' I remember feeling a bit moved because there's a sort of surrender for both of them to their fate. And there's that kind of relief or calm that comes with the surrender. So there is a kind of weird peace to it. And also she gets him, and so she can just die happy, or at least be satisfied with that. Watching the finale, what was your reaction? Did you feel satisfied that Joe got what he deserved? I think so. It felt really important that he no longer had access to these women and that he didn't get to swan around New York in nice suits. Rightly or wrongly, there's a part of me that wishes he could accept what he'd done and for a moment have some inner revelation where he sees himself for how he really is, but it's so apt that he doesn't do that. He never has accepted responsibilities. It's always someone else's fault. And then he finally turns it on his fans and it's like, 'Eek.' I think that's absolutely fitting. Do you have a specific season five moment or scene that you're most proud of as an actor? One from a practical point of view — sorry, this should be more serious of an answer — but I had a really bad stomach virus just before I did the scene with the cage with Nadia [Amy-Leigh Hickman] and Marienne [Tati Gabrielle], and when I was like dying. So on a physical level, I feel really proud of myself that I managed to get through that after about three days of basically seeing god! But it really helped inform that kind of delirium, that final moment, it's bizarre how that happened. And I do love laying into Joe. The feeling of getting to list all of the things that he's done: that he kills a woman and runs away to chase another woman, and then he kills her, like just laying out his basic nothingness and his total formulaic pathetic-ness was really fun. Then Joe gets to give it back because he doesn't care about her anymore. There's nothing to lose, so there's this abandon to it. It was fun. Is there anything you personally take away from playing Kate? Oh, so much. I've learned so much from this whole experience of doing this show from the beginning of getting the role, the fear I felt coming into it, the things I learned about myself and about working. This feels very indulgent because it's my own personal relationship with it, but it taught me loads of great things, like you should try and not get in your own way. It sounds so hard to say things that don't sound cliché, but wasting your time, constantly worrying about whether things are gonna be good or bad, gets in the way of just doing the job. That was a huge thing I've learned. And whether you're up to the challenge or not, especially with something as big as this, is again just a waste of time because you have to do it, so stop worrying about whether you're gonna match it or not and what that even means. Also working for a big company, it's made up of individuals and you can kind of find those connections. Ultimately, you learn so much from the things that you find difficult, and I definitely found it challenging playing Kate. How have your past projects helped inform the actor you are today, and do you ever find yourself reflecting on those past roles? I do. I think I don't ever really consciously reflect until quite a lot later. It's always a good six months or a year later. I can see with some distance, the changes that might have happened. But as you get older, you start to realize that every experience, positive or negative, deepens you in some ways if you let it. I feel so lucky because I've got to work with such great people. I think I grew up with a kind of image of actors or showbiz that it was sort of flighty and everyone was a bit self-involved, but I've just had the best conversations, the best scene partners, the best colleagues over the years. I'm sounding like I'm retiring (laughs). But I just love it. I'm glad that I can start to see that even when things are tricky, that's a worthwhile thing. Is there a genre, project or role that you have yet to do that you would like to do in the future? I would love to be in some kind of sci-fi thing that was optimistic about the future. I am craving a vision of the future that is positive. Optimistic early Star Trek visions of humanity would be so nice. What does your perfect day off look like? It's probably a not-too late wake up, so I feel like I'm making the morning. It's lovely weather, it's spring. It's a cup of tea in bed. It's maybe a nice breakfast with my boyfriend and then maybe see a friend for lunch, maybe play football for an hour or so, go to the pub, have a really nice time, come home, be alone and play my PlayStation for five hours (laughs). Really, I think that's where I'm at right now. I would love if it ended with some sort of click my fingers and I'm in a club and it's great music and all my friends who like dancing are there. That would be really nice if it could end like that and I had the energy, but in all honesty, some of my nicest evenings recently have been just closing the curtains on a beautiful summer's evening and playing The Last of Us for about five hours (laughs). What's one of the biggest challenges you've been able to overcome to help get you to where you are today? I think it's the way in which an anxious mind can sabotage your mental freedom. I've had therapy for anxiety for four years now, on and off. I spoke to this amazing acting coach last summer in New York, and I have so many friends around me who are having these revelations, realizing how powerful those negative voices are and how much it's up to you to stop them from getting in the way. Also this amazing phrase that someone said to me: 'If you can't get out of it, get into it.' And the sense that once you're doing something, stop fanning around and being like, 'I wish it wasn't like this.' It's like this, so either do it or don't do it. If you had to describe what makes Charlotte Ritchie, Charlotte Ritchie, what would you say? Oh my gosh, I honestly can't answer that (laughs). Let's say it's something I'm trying to work out. We are all so many multitudes of things at any given moment that to summarize into one thing, I don't think it's possible. So I'm going to give myself credit that I'm more than one thing at a time. *** Season five of You, along with all previous seasons, is currently streaming on Netflix. Read THR's finale postmortem with co-showrunners Michael Foley and Justin W. Lo and Penn Badgley. Best of The Hollywood Reporter 22 of the Most Shocking Character Deaths in Television History A 'Star Wars' Timeline: All the Movies and TV Shows in the Franchise 'Yellowstone' and the Sprawling Dutton Family Tree, Explained
