Authorities in Thailand have located three children, ages nine to 15, who are suspected of setting a homeless man on fire under a bridge in Bangkok and recording the attack.

The victim, a 51-year-old man known as Karn, lives beneath the Ban Ma Bridge in the Prawet district, where he earns money by collecting recyclable materials. He said the incident happened while he was asleep, according to SCMP.

“I was sleeping under the bridge when I felt cold liquid being poured on me before flames erupted on my body,” Karn told reporters.

Witnesses in the area said the attack appeared unprovoked, supporting Karn’s claim that he had no connection to the suspects.

SCMP writes that police confirmed Thursday that the three minors have been identified, but their identities are being kept confidential under child protection laws. Investigators said the children could face charges including attempted murder and destruction of public property, after nearby infrastructure was damaged during the fire.

Video footage of the incident quickly spread online, drawing intense backlash. Many users demanded tougher punishment, with some calling for the suspects to be tried as adults or for their parents to be held legally responsible.

The case has renewed attention on violent incidents involving young people in Thailand. In August last year, three teenagers in Lampang were arrested for killing a disabled dog by setting it on fire in an abandoned building, though authorities never revealed the outcome.

That same month, a separate attack in Bangkok made international headlines when a Malaysian tourist couple was set ablaze by an unemployed man near a major shopping center.

The government later pledged to cover their medical expenses and provide compensation.

As investigators continue their work, the latest incident has sparked wider debate about youth behavior, accountability, and public safety in Thailand.

Authored by Josiah Lippincott via American Greatness,

By the time this piece publishes, the United States military might already have launched air strikes on Iran. Indeed, planes could be launching while I write this. Nevertheless, here is a list of seven reasons why our government should not intervene in the Middle East.

1) It has never gone well. That is unlikely to change now. In 1953, the CIA overthrew the elected government of Iran to help the British more easily extract oil. We then installed the Shah, whom lots of Persians didn’t like. That problem came to a head in 1979 with the Shah being deposed and the religious fundamentalists, led by the Ayatollah, coming to power. That was not a success story for the United States.

Then there are the horrific boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lies that drew us into the First Gulf War (babies stabbed in incubators!), the Syrian civil war, the disastrous collapse of Libya after Obama’s airstrikes, the Arab Spring nonsense, and the intervention in Lebanon that led to 200 Marines getting killed. I could go on.

The American government has a long pattern of failure in the Middle East.

2) Iran is not a military threat to America. This will cause the DC establishment types to be upset, but it is true. Iran’s anger with America stems from the coup we staged there and the meddling in Iran’s near abroad. This relationship can be easily fixed by simply stopping our current policy of hostility to the regime in Iran and adopting a policy of simply ignoring the region.

This is the right policy towards Iran because the country is not a threat to us. Iran cannot militarily attack America. The Revolutionary Guard is not going to stage an amphibious landing on the Potomac. Iranian agents of subterfuge on American soil have been hapless fools, easily foiled.

Even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, nothing changes. Iran cannot nuke America without getting obliterated in return. Therefore, there is no incentive to use those nuclear weapons in an offensive fashion.

Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China are all “bad” powers that have nuclear weapons. They’ve never used these weapons for a reason—the price isn’t worth the gain. Nukes are an ace in the hole for national defense, but they don’t have offensive utility in a world of atomic parity.

3) Iran’s relationship to Israel is not our problem. Iran and Israel despise each other for reasons that are complex and not worth getting into here. Needless to say, this is not a problem for Americans. Lots of people on earth don’t like each other. This isn’t new. The best thing to do in these cases is to simply stay out. We ought not borrow trouble that has no bearing on our national interests.

Israel is a big boy country. The Israelis can solve their own problems. There is no need for the American taxpayer to be involved.

Much is made of the anti-Semitism of the Iranian regime, with the implication being that the Ayatollah will use nuclear weapons against Israel if he gets the bomb. This is fearmongering with no basis in reality. Israel, like America, has nuclear weapons. If Tel Aviv gets annihilated, then so will Tehran. There is simply no gain for the Iranians in that case. Moreover, there is absolutely zero reason for the United States to get mixed up in a potential nuclear standoff between any countries anywhere on earth.

To be frank, the leadership of Iran is no more insane, moralistic, or fanatical than the Israeli or American ruling classes. In fact, they seem to be less expansionist than our own DC meddlers, mostly due to the aged character of the Iranian ruling element. The American military-industrial complex is more ferocious about spreading gay sex, feminism, and “democracy” abroad than Iran is in spreading Shia Islam.

4) The Iranian struggle for freedom is not a concern of the American government. The Declaration of Independence says that the purpose of government is to secure the rights “to life, liberty, and happiness” of the American people.

The Iranian people, however we may feel at a personal level about their cause, are not Americans. They don’t pay taxes, don’t owe us loyalty, haven’t consented to being ruled by us, and we have not agreed to rule over them in turn.

Their problems are their problems. The American government serves the American people. The Iranians are not Americans. They don’t get to ask American taxpayers to give them money, weapons, and support.

If Americans privately want to support women’s liberation or whatever in Iran, they are welcome to do so, but that isn’t what tax money is for.

5) Tax money spent on bombing Iran would be more useful here at home. Let’s take a hard-headed view of the costs at stake here: every dollar we spend monkeying with the desert drama queens is a dollar we didn’t spend on something else here at home.

War does not “boost the economy” because all of the weapons used and all of the soldiers’ paychecks have to come from taxing the economy. Everything in life comes with tradeoffs. War is no different.

Americans shouldn’t pay for weapons to be used on causes that don’t serve their interests, and our primary interest is protection. Our government is supposed to protect our bodies and our property. We have real problems with this right now here at home. Much more needs to be done to make American communities safe and peaceful.

I care far more about violence and criminal mischief in Hillsdale, Michigan, than in Tehran. Lots of bad things happen every day all over the world. Our tax dollars should be used to solve problems here.

6) Intervention backfires. Wars for human rights and far-flung geostrategic “interests” are always boondoggles. The long-term effects are bad: we stoke resentment among the natives, offend local power players, get sucked into unintelligible complex regional problems, and bear the long-term costs of dealing with the fallout.

There is, thankfully, an easy way to avoid all these issues: just stay away. If individual Americans care about the Middle East, then they can choose to spend their own money and time messing around in the region.

Surely, if Americans really thought bombing Iran was a good idea, then they would be eagerly offering up money to mercenaries and resistance fighters to go in there and spread freedom. Since most Americans are not doing this willingly, why should they be forced to support these measures unwillingly with tax dollars? It doesn’t make sense.

7) The American government should adopt the golden rule out of self-interest. Americans would not like it if a foreign government decided to meddle in our internal affairs. If China or Russia announced that they were going to launch military operations against the American homeland because of police “brutality” waged by ICE against illegal migrants, there would be an enormous backlash. Even leftists might view this as going too far.

We expect other countries to mind their own business and to stay out of ours. We should do the same abroad. Our real interests are right here on our own soil.

Instead of going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, the American government should worry about problems here. The easiest way is to simply stay out of unnecessary conflicts. The opportunities for problems abroad are simply too great. The Middle East is a mess and one the American government has done more, over its history, to create than to solve.

Time to take a step back.

Lululemon Athletica has drifted from its core strength in premium, high-quality yoga pants, chasing trends and fast product cycles. Competitors such as Alo Yoga and Vuori are quickly taking market share, while Lululemon has seen quality lapses, culminating in the botched launch of its “Get Low” tights earlier this month.

Bloomberg reports that Chief Brand and Product Activation Officer Nikki Neuburger told hundreds of employees at a meeting last week and in a video shared with staff worldwide that customers were not wearing the new $108 Get Low tights correctly.

Neuburger said that customers who bought the new controversial leggings, which some customers claim were see-through and “not squat proof,” must size up and wear skin-toned underwear before putting on Get Low tights.

Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, was quoted by Bloomberg as saying that Neuburger’s memo to staff blaming customers for the see-through tights fiasco must “honestly be a joke.”

“You are selling a premium product, you shouldn’t have to issue instructions to women on how to wear leggings because your product is defective,” Saunders said.

Earlier this month, Lululemon pulled its new tights from its North America e-commerce website just days after launch, following an uproar on social media over claims that the leggings were see-through. But it re-introduced the tights to the online store about a week ago.

In response to the epic failure, founder Chip Wilson felt compelled enough to blast the Board in a social media post:

This is a new low for lululemon. Pulling back the “Get Low” product line after three days is clearly a total operational failure. This comes just 17 months after the failed launch of the “Breezethrough” leggings, a product line also discontinued for similar product flaws. I’ve believed that lululemon has lost its cool for some time, but it is now evident to me that the Company has completely lost its way as a leader in technical apparel. For years, lululemon’s results (particularly in North America) have shown how the Company has struggled to deliver products that are compelling and beloved; now it is unable to simply deliver products that work.

Despite any finger pointing internally following this mishap, this is not the fault of any hard-working employees. This is the fault of the Board. It is clear that persistent failures like this are born out of this Board’s lack of experience in creative businesses, disinterest in product development and quality, and focus on short-term, self-interested priorities. How could anyone reach a conclusion other than the Board continues to make decisions that are destroying the brand and the stock price?

What product quality testing did the Board review? How often does the Board review the product pipeline? Are leaders empowered to make the best product decision or simply pushed to the lowest cost decision?

I believe a leading Board would have a Brand Product Committee and have asked these questions.

For memory’s sake, let’s take another look at the Get Low line.

And one last time.

Meanwhile, Alo Yoga and Vuori are winning influencers and younger customers; Lululemon’s attempts to follow that playbook have epically backfired. Year-to-date, shares are down 17%, below Covid lows.

Saunders said, “They’ve gone from being the leader in the category to, honestly, a bit of a follower.”

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday said he imposed a statewide disaster declaration to prevent the spread of a type of parasitic fly in his state.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to the media at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 22, 2025. AP Photo/Eric Gay

The New World screwworm isn’t yet present in the United States or Texas, although officials say it has been spreading toward the U.S.–Mexico border. Abbot said it can cause potential problems for the U.S. livestock industry if it spreads northward across the border.

“State law authorizes me to act to prevent a threat of infestation that could cause severe damage to Texas property, and I will not wait for such harm to reach our livestock and wildlife,” he said in a statement.

The disaster declaration allows him to mobilize the Texas New World Screwworm Response Team to “fully utilize all state government prevention and response resources to prevent the re-emergence of this destructive parasite” and that “Texas is prepared to fully eradicate this pest if need be,” he said.

The governor added that the order directs the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Animal Health Commission to create the response team and partner with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to respond to the parasite.

Screwworms can infect livestock, wildlife, and people, health and agriculture authorities have said. The insect’s maggots can burrow into the skin, inflicting serious and, in some cases, fatal damage to an organism.

In a notice on its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it is usually found in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and South America. People are at a higher risk of contracting the infection if they travel to such areas or are around livestock in rural places where the screwworm flies are located and if they also have an open wound, according to the agency.

“NWS infestations are very painful,” the CDC says on its website, using an acronym for the New World screwworm. “If you have an NWS infestation, you may see maggots (larvae) around or in an open wound. They could also be in your nose, eyes, or mouth.”

The declaration from Abbott comes as the USDA said that, as of Jan. 22, the screwworm has not yet been detected in the United States.

Larvae of the screwworm fly, collected from infected cows, at the COPEG sterile fly production plant, which fights the spread of the cattle screwworm, in Pacora, Panama, on June 11, 2025. Enea Lebrun/Reuters

Screwworms were previously found in the United States but were eradicated in 1966, the USDA said. Officials also eliminated a small outbreak reported in the Florida Keys in 2017, it said.

In August, officials said the first human case of a New World screwworm was detected in a person in Maryland who had at the time recently traveled to El Salvador. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told The Epoch Times at the time that the risk to the public posed by the infection was “very low.”

That same month, the USDA said it would launch an initiative to combat the spread of the parasite in the United States, describing it as a national security threat. The plan includes bolstering funding to technologies that will bolster U.S. sterile fly production that it said would prevent its spread as well as the construction of a “domestic sterile screwworm production facility” in Texas, it added.

Russia’s second-largest oil producer, Lukoil, has agreed to sell the bulk of its international assets – initially valued at $22 billion by analysts – to private equity heavyweight Carlyle, as Western sanctions continue to force a fire sale of Russian energy holdings abroad.

This sanctions-induced fire sale was expected, as the company had first unveiled in late October: “Lukoil informs that owing to introduction of restrictive measures against the Company and its subsidiaries by some states the Company announces its intention to sell its international assets.” 

Via Harici

The US sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft represented the first major round of economic penalties imposed on Moscow following Trump’s return to his second term in the White House.

“I just felt it was time,” Trump had told reporters on Oct. 22 while hosting NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office. “These are tremendous sanctions. We hope they won’t be on for long. We hope that the war will be settled.“

It was seen as a way to pressure the Kremlin to the negotiating table – something with ‘teeth’ – but the reality has remained that the Zelensky government and its Western backers are unwilling to give up territory, which is a Moscow main sticking point.

The oil sanctions were imposed “as a result of Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine” – and that forced Lukoil into a formal bidding process.

The Carlyle deal notably excludes Lukoil’s assets in Kazakhstan, which will remain under Lukoil Group ownership and continue operating under existing licenses.

The agreement is non-exclusive and remains contingent on multiple conditions, including regulatory approvals and explicit authorization from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for the transaction with Carlyle, according to various industry reports.

Discussions and negotiations with other potential buyers are still ongoing, Lukoil has said in the meantime. 

#Lukoil agrees to sell most international assets to #Carlyle

▪️Deal excludes stakes in #Kazakhstan
▪️Sale is subject to OFAC approval

Full story 💻: https://t.co/AAMGyhHBBP pic.twitter.com/EQpbDoWau2

— Oil by S&P Global Energy (@SPGEnergyOil) January 30, 2026

Previously Chevron and ExxonMobil, as well as Abu Dhabi’s International Holding Company (IHC), had expressed official interest to the U.S. Treasury in acquiring Lukoil’s international portfolio.