‘Running Point’ review: A lot like ‘Entourage,’ minus the bro-y energy

posted in: All news | 0

In an age of conglomerates, there are still professional sports teams under private ownership, often with one family as the face of the franchise. That’s the premise of the buoyantly entertaining Netflix comedy “Running Point,” starring Kate Hudson as one such nepo-baby who is suddenly thrust into the top job running the whole shebang.

She plays Isla Gordon, a reformed party girl in Los Angeles relegated to a basement office of her family’s professional basketball team (called the Waves; the show conspicuously avoids the letters “NBA”) where she handles charitable endeavors. She has a real understanding of the game, but it’s her brothers who occupy the executive suite — Justin Theroux as team president, Scott MacArthur as GM and Drew Tarver as CFO — and they are oblivious to her potential.

When circumstances abruptly change, Isla is named president, to everyone’s surprise, including her own. Hudson is giving the kind of sparkling performance that harkens back to the era of her rom-com dominance. The team has a losing record and a point guard who is causing PR headaches. Can Isla turn things around? She’s tasked with putting out one fire after another, whether it’s replacing a lost sponsor or finagling a player who wants to be traded.

The 10-episode series comes from Mindy Kaling, Ike Barinholtz and David Stassen (who previously worked together on “The Mindy Project”), and it is loosely based on Los Angeles Lakers president Jeanie Buss, who is also an executive producer on the show. I suppose this means we now have a nascent Lakers television universe that includes HBO’s “Winning Time” (about her father, team owner Jerry Buss, and his over-the-top antics).

But the Buss of it all is the least interesting thing about “Running Point,” which giddily envisions the inner workings of a team’s front office. This is a sunny, glossy, fast-paced story of ambition and surmounting challenges. It brings to mind “Entourage” or “Ballers,” but is several cuts above either because it’s not predicated on bro-y energy.

It’s such a relief to see a show actually respect, and take advantage of, the television form! Hudson has an eye-catching wardrobe (courtesy of costume designer Salvador Pérez Jr.) and the episodes have a thematic and visual brightness that is an essential component: The show is an easy watch and the aesthetics subconsciously tell your brain “relax, this is fun.”

When the Gordon siblings belatedly learn they have a younger brother they never knew about (played by Fabrizio Guido) whose mother was a housekeeper for their father 20 years back, and Isla hires him to work as her assistant. Brenda Song plays the no-baloney best friend, who also works for the team, and upon Isla’s promotion she offers these words of advice: “On behalf of all women, don’t ever make a mistake — looks bad for all of us.” Chet Hanks plays aforementioned point guard; Toby Sandeman is the veteran player who is the glue that holds the team together; Max Greenfield is Isla’s finance who supportive of her new role, but only to a point; and Jay Ellis is the head coach with whom Isla has some low-key flirtations.

I like shows about work — not just as a setting, but as the primary driver of a show’s drama and comedy — and “Running Point” excels at this enough that it convinces you to overlook some of its flaws, including Tarver’s CFO, who has been written with no redeeming qualities as a person (it’s unclear if this is even intentional). I’m also perplexed by the unexplored disinterest among the siblings when it comes to their new brother, who is naive and sweet and so clearly desperate to connect. Why introduce a new relation and tease the potential complications that might bring, only to mostly wall him off in his own storyline? And there’s a scene wherein Isla finagles a deal by juggling phone calls with GMs from two different teams that is less homage than blatant ripoff of a similar scene in “Moneyball.”

Isla was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has zero experience as an executive. You’re rooting for her all the same. Her brothers are not above sabotage when it comes to her new role, but MacArthur’s simple, knucklehead of a GM is impossible to hate. The motivations driving Theroux’s slippery character are harder to read, which feels right, as well. But ultimately “Running Point” works because while Isla may be in charge of a team worth several billion dollars, she actually has a moral compass. That feels conspicuously, alarmingly, unique at the moment.

“Running Point” — 3.5 stars (out of 4)

Where to watch: Netflix

Nina Metz is a Tribune critic.

Ice-out contest for White Bear Lake, Bald Eagle Lake, gets underway

posted in: All news | 0

While winters in Minnesota are often unpredictable, count on the return of the ice-out contest for White Bear Lake and Bald Eagle Lake this year.

As with previous years, participants can submit one entry per person with an ice-out date for one or both lakes. Entries must be submitted by March 3 before midnight and there is no fee. For more information and to make a prediction go to rallywba.com.

Participants are encouraged to mention their favorite local business and multiple winners will be declared and drawn at random from those who guess the correct date.

People can also participate on Facebook leading up to the ice-out dates by guessing the ice measurements on specific dates. Prizes include gift cards to local businesses which can be claimed at the contest’s ice-out party at Washington Square Bar and Grill at 4736 Washington Square in White Bear Lake.

Haskins said he’s going after the title of the largest ice-out contest in the country this year. He said he started the contest to support local businesses during the pandemic.

“And my goal was to bring as much attention to the local community, the business community, as I could. You know, just to help give as much benefit and boost to exposure to them. And that’s really still at the core of what the contest is about,” Haskins said.

Ice-outs

Sponsored by Nimble Impressions – Haskin’s marketing agency in White Bear Lake – and Rally WBA, the contest includes prizes and gift cards donated by local businesses.

Multiple winners will be declared after the White Bear Lake Conservation District makes the ice-out official. The conservation district is responsible for declaring an ice-out on White Bear Lake, Haskins said, while he will handle declaring ice-out on Bald Eagle Lake.

According to the state Department of Natural Resources, the definition of a lake ice-out can vary by lake, such as when a lake is 90%, or completely, free of ice or when it is possible to navigate from certain points on the water.

If a person could drive a boat 50 feet off-shore around the perimeter of the lake without running into ice and middle sections of the lake are free of large ice masses, it would be considered an ice-out, according to the Rally WBA website.

Last year’s ice-out date for both lakes was March 8. However, by mid-February last year, the ice only measured at seven inches for Bald Eagle Lake. As of Feb. 23 this year, that measurement was 22 inches. The latest ice-out date for Bald Eagle Lake was May 2, 2018; for White Bear Lake, the latest ice-out was May 4 in 2018 and 1950.

Meanwhile, the it’s important to remember lake ice can be dangerous.

On Thursday a car reported to have submerged into White Bear Lake in late January was removed by a private towing company, according to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office. The driver told Ramsey County deputies at the time of the report that he was crossing the lake when his front wheels broke through the ice and water started coming through the floorboards. He was able to exit the car through the front driver’s side window before going home.

Related Articles

Local News |


White Bear Lake assistant fire chief tapped to be Mahtomedi chief

Local News |


White Bear Lake tattoo artist sentenced to federal prison for buying and selling stolen body parts

The COVID ‘contrarians’ are in power. We still haven’t hashed out whether they were right

posted in: All news | 0

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

In October, Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya hosted a conference on the lessons of COVID-19 in order “to do better in the next pandemic.” He invited scholars, journalists, and policy wonks who, like him, have criticized the U.S. management of the crisis as overly draconian.

Related Articles

Health |


Texas says doctor illegally treated trans youth. He says he followed the law

Health |


As bird flu spreads, feds might undercut states by firing scientists, removing data

Health |


With RFK Jr. in charge, supplement makers see chance to cash in

Health |


Health clinic workers brush up on constitutional protections as immigration raids loom

Health |


As measles cases mount in the US, what’s the situation worldwide?

Bhattacharya also invited public health authorities who had considered his alternative approach reckless. None of them showed up.

Now, the “contrarians” are seizing the reins: President Donald Trump has nominated Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health and Johns Hopkins University surgeon Marty Makary to run the Food and Drug Administration. Yet the polarized disagreements about what worked and what didn’t in the fight against the biggest public health disaster in modern times have yet to be aired in a nonpartisan setting — and it seems unlikely they ever will be.

“The whole COVID discussion turned into culture war dialogue, with one side saying, ‘I believe in the economy and liberty,’ and the other saying, ‘I believe in science and saving people’s lives,’” said Philip Zelikow, a scholar and former diplomat based at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

Frances Lee, a Princeton University political scientist, has a book coming out that calls for a national inquiry to determine the lockdown and mandate approaches that were most effective.

“This is an open question that needs to be confronted,” she said. “Why not look back?”

For now, even with the threat of an H5N1 bird flu pandemic on the horizon, and some other plague waiting in the wings of a bat or goose in a far-flung corner of the world, U.S. public health officials face ebbing public trust as well as a disruptive new health administration led by skeptics of established medicine. On Feb. 7, the Trump administration announced devastating NIH budget cuts, although a judge put them on hold three days later.

Zelikow led the 34-member COVID Crisis Group, funded by four private foundations in 2021, whose work was intended to inform an independent inquiry along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, which Zelikow headed.

The COVID group published a book detailing its findings, after Congress and the Biden administration abandoned initiatives to create a commission.

That was a shame, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health, because “while there are some real ideological battles over COVID, there’s also lots of stuff that potentially could be fixed related to government efficiency and policy.”

Bhattacharya, Makary, and others in 2023 called for a larger study of the pandemic. It’s not known whether the Trump administration would support one, Lee said.

The new CIA director, John Ratcliffe, however, has reopened the Wuhan lab leak theory, an issue that Republicans have used to try to cast blame on Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert and a top COVID adviser to both the first Trump and Biden administrations. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the new head of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, says he’ll investigate what he described as a cover-up of COVID vaccine safety problems.

Bhattacharya declined to respond to questions for this article. Makary did not respond to requests for comment.

Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis said his colleague Bhattacharya has an opportunity to advance understanding of the pandemic.

“Until now it has been mostly a war on impressions and media, kind of mobilizing the troops. That’s not really how science should be done,” Ioannidis said. “We need to move forward with some calm reflection, with no retaliation.”

Mistakes Were Made

In October 2020, Bhattacharya co-authored the “Great Barrington Declaration” with Trump White House support. It called for people to ignore COVID and go about their business while protecting the old and vulnerable — without specifics about how.

Bhattacharya and Makary championed the policies of Sweden, which did not impose a harsh lockdown but emerged with a death rate far lower than that of the United States. The Swedes had advantages including lower poverty rates, greater access to health care, and high levels of social trust. For instance, by April 2022, 87% of Swedes ages 12 and over were vaccinated against COVID — without mandates. The U.S. figure, for adults over 18, was 76% at the time.

After Bhattacharya’s earlier research was rebuffed by most of the public health establishment, he “curdled into a theological position that the risk wasn’t that severe and the economic costs were so high that we had to roll the dice, or segregate the elderly — which you cannot do,” Zelikow said.

Ten experts interviewed for this article largely agreed that the health establishment lost public trust after bungling the initial handling of the pandemic. Existing pandemic plans were faulty or ignored. Shortages of protective gear and inadequate testing rendered containment of the virus impossible. As time wore on, government scientists failed to emphasize that their recommendations would change as new data came in.

“We totally blew it,” former NIH Director Francis Collins said, in a discussion sponsored by Braver Angels, a group that promotes dialogue among political opponents. Though he blamed disinformation about vaccines for many deaths, he also wished public health officials had said “we don’t know” more often.

Collins said he didn’t pay enough attention to the socioeconomic impact of lockdowns. “You attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life,” he said. “You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recover from.”

While Fauci and other public health officials did express worries about collateral damage from mandates, U.S. measures were stricter than in much of the world. That’s left unresolved issues, such as how long schools should have been shuttered, whether mask mandates worked, and whether the public was misled about the efficacy of vaccines.

At the same time, U.S. officials failed to communicate clearly that vaccines prevented most deaths and hospitalizations. An estimated 232,000 unvaccinated Americans died from COVID during the first 15 months in which shots were freely available.

Experiences with HIV control taught public health officials not to moralize about behavior, to focus on harm reduction, and to use the least restrictive methods possible, Nuzzo said. Yet politicization led to shaming of people who wouldn’t mask or refused vaccination.

Harm reduction was top of mind for infectious disease doctor Monica Gandhi when she defied lockdown orders by keeping open Ward 86, the clinic she runs for 2,600 HIV patients at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Her patients — many poor or homeless — had to be treated in person to keep their HIV in check, she said.

In general, the lockdowns hurt low-income people most, she said. The wealthy “were happy to be shut down, and the poor struggled and struggled.” Gandhi’s two children attended a private school that quickly reopened, she said. Yet she recalled how a medical assistant burst into tears when asked how her family was doing.

“My 8-year-old is at home, on Zoom, all by himself,” the woman told Gandhi. “I have to work and he doesn’t know how to learn that way. There’s no one to give him food.”

Despite strictures, including school closures that were longer than in most European countries, the U.S.’ death rate from COVID was the highest in the world, except for Bulgaria, according to an Ioannidis study of countries with reliable data.

Part of the blame lies with the first Trump administration, which “more or less just said, ‘You states manage this crisis,” Zelikow said. “They went through a lot of somersaults. They did a lot of feckless things and then they basically just gave up,” he said. Pandemic deaths peaked in the four months after the November 2020 election that Trump lost.

Ioannidis, a critic of lockdowns, said the United States was doomed to a bad outcome in any case because of vulnerabilities in the population including poverty, inequality, lack of health care access, poorly protected nursing homes, high rates of obesity, and low levels of trust.

But the disappearance of viral diseases such as respiratory syncytial virus and flu in late 2020 showed how much worse it could have been without lockdowns, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has noted that, while children were the least vulnerable to COVID, it killed 1,700 of them by April 2023. More than a million American children had had long COVID as of 2022, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

Consensus Never Arrived

After arising by accidental passage from bats and other animals to humans (or, alternatively, from a Chinese lab accident), the coronavirus was uncannily adept at frustrating containment efforts — and aggravating political tensions. Its ability to infect up to 50% of people asymptomatically, infection outcomes ranging from sniffles to death, waning immunity after infection and vaccination, and the shifting health impact of new variants meant “the deck was stacked against public health,” said biology professor Joshua Weitz of the University of Maryland.

In the end, teams formed along political lines. Conservatives attacked governors for depriving them of liberty, and Trump’s erroneous ramblings about curing the disease with bleach and ultraviolet light inspired intolerance on the left.

“If anyone else was president we would have had a better result,” Gandhi said. “But if Trump said the sky was blue, then goddamn it, the infection disease doctors disagreed.”

The right and left don’t even agree on the correct questions to ask about the pandemic, said Josh Sharfstein, a vice dean of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

“Everyone knew that 9/11 was a terrorist attack,” he said. “But what the pandemic was and represents — there’s so much disagreement still.”

“We let children down, we let poor people down,” Ioannidis said in closing remarks at the Stanford conference. “We let our future down.”

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Low buy, big impact: How I cut spending and stress

posted in: All news | 0

If you’re anything like me, your social media feeds were full of people doing low-buy or no-buy challenges at the beginning of the year. They were sick of overconsuming, so they set rules for themselves to spend much less — or nothing at all — on nonessential expenses.

Related Articles

Business |


In a reversal, plans for U.S. natural gas power grow, complicating progress on climate

Business |


Average US rate on a 30-year mortgage falls for sixth-straight week to lowest level since December

Business |


America First? Not when it comes to stock markets worldwide

Business |


Pending US home sales slide to all-time low in January on rates, prices, maybe weather

Business |


EU pushes back hard against Trump tariff threats and his caustic comments that bloc is out to get US

Scrolling through those videos got me thinking about my spending habits and what goals I wanted to set for myself in 2025: less financial stress, a more thoughtfully curated life and the freedom to plan new experiences without guilt.

So I decided to start my own low-buy experiment in January and asked experts for their perspectives.

Get real about your spending

The goal of a low-buy or no-buy challenge is to break the cycle of overconsumption by cutting nonessential spending for a set period.

“Social media has made it trendy to do no-buy or low-buy, but to be honest, as a financial expert, over the last 10 years, this is a phenomena that happens every single year,” says Bola Sokunbi, a certified financial education instructor and founder of Clever Girl Finance in Bridgewater, N.J.

With a low-buy challenge, people reflect on what they bought last year and set rules based on their biggest financial struggles, she says. The purpose is to redirect saved money toward meaningful financial goals and move toward underconsumption.

Identify pain points

This challenge is about rethinking your spending, particularly if you tend to buy stuff that winds up cluttering your home and stressing you out. To identify purchases to cut back on, locate areas of your home or life that overwhelm you, says Amanda Rakoczy, a Florida-based content creator who says she paid off $50,000 in credit card debt last year.

If you’re tripping over kids’ toys or can’t find storage for unused home decor, for example, those types of expenses are likely worth trimming.

New clothing was becoming a budget breaker for me. My closet felt like a mashup of passing trends, cheap clothes I’d buy online and postpartum necessities that didn’t reflect my personal style.

For Rakoczy, beauty products were her vice. “Before I know it, I have 20 lip glosses by four different brands,” she says.

Rakoczy is now tackling a low-buy challenge with her family.

Personalize your rules

Practicality and realism are keys to success. “Most people fail the no-buy or low-buy because the rules don’t work for them,” Sokunbi says.

I know not buying any clothes for a whole year isn’t realistic for me. So I am allowing myself to buy secondhand clothes, but only those that are made of better quality than what I already own — think 100% cotton, wool, cashmere, silk, denim.

I did break my rules once to buy a pair of shoes I’d been eyeing for months — but they were deeply discounted, and the purchase didn’t feel impulsive or unplanned. I leaned into the new consumption habits I’m trying to form, and this one purchase didn’t open the floodgates to more spending.

Your rules can also be tailored to the season of life you’re in.

Rakoczy and her husband decided to divide their low-buy year into quarters. Each quarter has different rules that align with seasonal expenses and help the challenge fit better into their lives with two young children.

This quarter they’re focusing on saving money at the grocery store. “We felt like we had a lot of waste, and so we were able to reduce our grocery bill by almost $400 for the month,” she says. They simplified shopping trips, allowing kids to pick one snack for the week rather than many.

There’s another benefit of breaking a longer low-buy challenge into smaller parts: the chance to start fresh. If you slip up, the whole experiment hasn’t failed.

Track your progress

In those early low-buy or no-buy days or weeks, Sokunbi recommends using a spending journal, spreadsheet or smartphone note to track what you buy, or even what you didn’t buy. Noting what triggers your spending can help you understand your habits and make better choices.

I track my no-spend days in my paper calendar and keep a note on my phone where I list all the things I wanted to buy but didn’t. At the end of the month, I tally up the cost to get a sense of what I’ve saved.

Dawn Abernathy, a certified financial planner, suggests using a budgeting app to categorize spending and provide insights.

“It gives you real-time understanding about how you’re spending,” says Abernathy, who’s based in Chesterfield, Missouri. “Then you’re able to adjust your behavior or learn about what you’re really doing — not what you think you’re doing.”

Remember your ‘why’

For some, a low-buy or no-buy challenge is a way to achieve financial goals, such as paying off debt or saving for a down payment on a house or car.

A low-buy or no-buy challenge can also be a great way to build an emergency fund, Abernathy says. Having three to six months of necessary expenses can offer financial security and a sense of control, she says.

Reducing consumption can also decrease your financial stress.

“I was worried about another emergency happening, or another layoff happening, or something was going to happen and destroy this house of cards that I felt like I lived in,” Rakoczy says.

But things feel different now. “I am buying things to live a life that I want to live. I feel like I’m in charge and back in the driver’s seat,” she says.

The challenge has also improved her marriage, adding more accountability and teamwork, she says. Her kids are catching on, too. Her son asked for a family trip instead of a birthday party with presents. It feels like a culture shift in their family.

Focusing on your “why” can be the motivation you need to stick to your goals, Abernathy says.

“It can be really easy to say, ‘Oh, I want to save for the future.’ But when you have a cause behind why you’re doing it, then it has a greater meaning to you, and then it makes it much easier to implement,” she says.

My “why” becomes clearer every day. I have less financial stress and have easily managed a few unexpected costs that would have tripped me up before.

I’m watching my savings grow, and I’m becoming less easily influenced. I’m making space for more conscious consumption practices while leaning into contentment. I can’t wait to see what the rest of the year brings.

More From NerdWallet

Discussed on Reddit: How to Survive a Period of Unemployment
R.I.P. CFPB? What’s At Stake If the Watchdog Agency Goes Dark
Should You Use Your Tax Refund to Pay Off Debt?

Amanda Barroso writes for NerdWallet. Email: abarroso@nerdwallet.com.

The article Low Buy, Big Impact: How I Cut Spending and Stress originally appeared on NerdWallet.