Timberwolves coach Chris Finch beamed about his basketball team after it blew out the Bucks on Tuesday in Milwaukee.

“Really proud,” he said. “It was fun to watch us play.”

On both ends of the floor.

Defensively, Minnesota forced 19 turnovers — seven of which came from Giannis Antetokounmpo. Offensively, the Wolves shot 60% from the field, while making 22 triples and tallying a season-high 37 assists.

“Super sharp all over the place,” Finch said. “Gameplan was executed at a high level.”

And it was done without Minnesota’s two highest-paid players in Anthony Edwards and Rudy Gobert.

Midway through the campaign, Edwards is in prime position to earn his first first-team All-NBA honor this season and finish in the top five in MVP voting. Gobert is one of the front-runners to win Defensive Player of the Year. Much of the team’s offensive success is credited to the guard, while the defense’s achievements are often attributed to the center.

Yet, when Finch was asked if Minnesota perhaps played with a heightened awareness Tuesday because it was down two of its top guys, the coach also noted, “this is a lot of accomplished guys.”

He added to that sentiment Wednesday during his appearance with Paul Allen on KFXN-FM100.3.

“I think our guys were amped up and ready to play. I think they wanted to prove what they could do down a couple guys,” Finch told Allen. “A lot of guys knew they were going to be asked to do more … and they were ready for it, because they’re (dang) good players themselves.”

The reality is eight of the nine players in Minnesota’s current rotation have scored 20-plus points in a playoff game.

Jaden McDaniels is a second-team, All-Defensive team forward who could drop 30 points at a moment’s notice. Naz Reid could win his second NBA Sixth Man of the Year honor this season. Donte DiVincenzo was a focal point of a Knicks team that went to a Game 7 of the second round of the playoffs two seasons ago. Julius Randle is a two-time, All-NBA player.

That’s not including first-round pick Joan Beringer, who shined via his energy in the first extended minutes of his rookie campaign, finishing with 13 points and five rebounds, or Bones Hyland, who’s solidifying his reserve guard role in the Wolves’ rotation and made five 3-pointers against the Bucks.

Randle had 29 points, eight rebounds and six assists in the win. McDaniels had 14 points and three assists in the first quarter alone.

There’s talent up and down the lineup. The Timberwolves are far more than a two- or three-man band.

“We’re really fricken’ good,” DiVincenzo said last week, “and we have a really good roster.”

That much is clear, but even the obvious can get murky amid an 82-game season. Fits in regards to role and skillset are questioned on every roster and trade ideas are drummed up for solutions to problems that may not even necessarily exist.

Maybe the Wolves are deficient in certain areas. Who isn’t?

None of the team’s issues are due to a void in talent. That was on full display again in Milwaukee.

“We brought incredible pace to the game. Julius played outstanding at the point forward position, but everyone got out and ran,” Finch told Allen. “We played with great pace. … That’s one thing I’ve learned about us — the faster we get up and down in transition, the more it quickens our decision making. And our next action and the ball movement follows.

“When you’re moving the ball like that and you have a bunch of really skilled players out there who can all do their own thing, everybody is going to get good looks at it, and that’s what happened. We made the extra pass and it was not a lot of iso basketball. We played away from the crowd and just take the simple play.”

Ability takes over from there, no matter whose hands are holding the ball.

Related Articles

Timberwolves roll to 139-106 victory over Bucks without Edwards or Gobert

Rudy Gobert suspended for Tuesday’s Timberwolves game. What happens next time he gets a flagrant?

Frederick: Timberwolves’ unparalleled confidence unlocks the impossible … again.

Timberwolves rally to stun Spurs

Timberwolves defense can’t buy a stop as winning streak ends in Cleveland

“The lack of two- and three-bedroom apartments is not just a housing issue. It is a child success issue, a public health issue, and a community stability issue.”

(Photo via Shutterstock.com)

We often think about housing affordability at a superficial level, simply seeking greater supply to bring down prices. But this ignores a crisis just beneath the surface: the shortage of affordable, family-sized homes in desirable neighborhoods.

When families seek out apartments, they are searching for more than a place to lay their heads. They are searching for safety and community in neighborhoods with decent schools. When we fail to deliver affordable options that meet these needs, parents are forced to raise their children in overcrowded apartments, to shuttle between unstable living arrangements, or even to turn to temporary shelters. Children lose out: their education and relationships are fragmented and their safety is compromised.

The lack of two- and three-bedroom apartments is not just a housing issue. It is a child success issue, a public health issue, and a community stability issue. That is why the City Council’s passage of Int. 1433 to expand the availability of these units is so critical, and why it must move full speed ahead to override former Mayor Eric Adams’s veto—marking the beginning of a whole-of-government campaign to build a more family-friendly city.

At The Children’s Village and Harlem Dowling, two long-standing New York institutions founded on the belief that every child deserves unconditional love and belonging, we see the consequences of housing instability play out every day. 

Families who might otherwise thrive are squeezed by housing options that are too small, too scarce, or too costly. Children do their homework on the edge of a bed because there is no kitchen table. Teenagers sleep on couches because their families cannot secure a second or third bedroom. Sometimes, families that want to stay together are instead forced apart, interrupting a child’s education and leading to the loss of peers and community. 

We know what it takes to deliver for them, because we have built high-quality family housing in desirable neighborhoods. Thirteen years ago, we developed our first two-bedroom units at A Home for Harlem Dowling. We went further last year with The Eliza in Inwood, creating comfortable three-bedroom, two-bathroom homes that allow families of all sizes to put down roots. 

We knew the challenges: both projects pushed our organization to take on significant financial risk, and that’s why places like these are the exception, not the rule. Larger apartments cost more to build: they require more square footage, more walls, more plumbing, and, importantly, more bathrooms so families can live with dignity. In the affordable market, where rents are capped and funding formulas are rigid, these additional costs are too steep for developers—especially mission-driven nonprofits—to absorb without help.

Meanwhile, policies that once encouraged family-sized units across the city have been gutted. The city has steadily reduced requirements for two- and three-bedroom apartments. The market’s preference for studios and one-bedrooms that are cheaper to produce means the supply of family-sized homes shrinks further each year. 

What’s worse, driven by the housing crisis, some well-intentioned leaders are embracing this race to the bottom, exemplified by the recent push to permit construction of single-room apartments (SROs) as small as 100 square feet each. SROs, especially those designed for workers, have been a successful model outside New York—but here, these tiny one-room units with shared bathrooms have a long history of poor management, crime, overcrowding, and segregation. 

Simply put, there is a fundamental misalignment between what families need and what the system rewards, and recent policy shifts are widening that gap rather than closing it.

Thankfully, we also know what works. When larger units are built, turnover drops dramatically. Two and three-bedroom units have the lowest turnover rate of any housing type. That means greater neighborhood stability, stronger multigenerational support networks, better educational continuity for children, and reduced strain on city systems. In other words, they directly contribute to the very outcomes New York City claims to prioritize.

If we want a city where families remain part of the social fabric and not a city hollowed out for single 20-somethings, then we must be bold and change the economic calculus. That starts with incentives, not just mandates.

The city should modernize its subsidy structures to reflect the real cost of building family-sized homes in desirable neighborhoods. Financing tools should reward developers who prioritize these units. Risk-mitigation mechanisms should be strengthened, particularly for nonprofit organizations that reinvest rather than profit. And our regulatory environment should be reshaped so that family housing is treated as essential infrastructure, not a luxury.

We must be clear-eyed: these policy changes will not happen overnight. But we must also be honest: if we do not reverse course, we will continue building a city that works better for tourists and transients than the families who want to call it home. New Yorkers deserve better than that. Our children deserve better than that.

At The Children’s Village, we remain committed to building affordable homes that allow families not only to live in New York City but to flourish here. But we cannot do it alone. The public and nonprofit sectors must work together with urgency, clarity, and creativity to build the housing our families need today and for generations to come.

New York has always been a city for families. We must take decisive action to ensure it stays that way.

Jeremy Kohomban is the president and CEO of The Children’s Village.

The post Opinon: When it Comes to Housing, Let’s Put Families First appeared first on City Limits.

By KATE BRUMBACK, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — The head of a nonpartisan group that supports Georgia prosecutors said the new state law that President Donald Trump and others charged in an election interference case are using to seek millions in attorney fees and costs from the Fulton County district attorney’s office is likely unconstitutional.

The law has “serious and potentially unconstitutional deficiencies,” notably because it denies county governments any sort of due process when defendants in a case request reimbursement, Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council Executive Director Pete Skandalakis wrote in a court filing Wednesday.

Georgia state legislators last year passed a law that says that if a prosecutor is disqualified from a case because of their own improper conduct and the case is then dismissed, anyone charged in that case is entitled to request “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred” in their defense. The judge overseeing the case then is responsible for reviewing the request and awarding the fees and costs, which are to be paid from the budget of the prosecutor’s office.

Trump is seeking more than $6.2 million and the total amount sought by him and other people charged in the case is nearly $17 million, Skandalakis noted.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others from a grand jury in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia.

Related Articles

Trump administration restores federal funding for family planning after ACLU lawsuit

After Minnesota shooting, Democrats call for Kristi Noem’s impeachment

Trump administration lawyers blessed US operation to remove Maduro from power, memo shows

US apologizes for deporting a college student flying home for Thanksgiving surprise

From Minneapolis to Venezuela, Trump starts new year with fresh risks as he faces midterm verdict

Willis and her office were removed from the case after the Georgia Court of Appeals found that there was an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship she had with the special prosecutor she chose to lead the case. Skandalakis took over the case late last year and dismissed it in November.

The new law “is probably unconstitutional because it leaves county governments — entities that are politically and practically separate from the elected District Attorney — responsible for paying costs that do not involve them, without any legal recourse to contest that responsibility,” Skandalakis wrote. That denies them due process under both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions, he argued.

A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment on Skandalakis’ filing. Willis had previously asked the judge to allow her to be heard on the matter of any claims for fees and costs filed in the case.

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said in an e-mailed statement that the law is constitutional and “Mr. Skandalakis’ contentions are simply wrong.”

Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, but the new law “treats the county government as a non-party entity subject to a money judgment it has no ability to contest,” Skandalakis wrote.

He also pointed out that the new law requires that the prosecutor be disqualified “due to improper conduct” and argues that there has been no finding of improper conduct in this case. Rather, the appeals court found an appearance of improper conduct. Therefore, to award Trump and others their legal costs, the judge “must find an appearance is the same as a completed act.”

Skandalakis also notes that the law doesn’t define a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney. The hourly rates paid to attorneys who step in when a district attorney or the state attorney general has a conflict are $66.57 and $125, respectively, Skandalakis wrote. Those rates are far below what some of the defense lawyers in the election case charged, but “they should be considered as part of what is reasonable,” Skandalakis wrote.

Defense attorneys sought Willis’ removal after one of them revealed in January 2024 that Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. The defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest.

The trial judge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, rebuked Willis, saying in an order in March 2024 that her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he did not find a conflict of interest that would disqualify Willis. He ultimately ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned, which the special prosecutor did hours later.

Defense attorneys appealed that ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December 2024, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal.

By JONEL ALECCIA, Associated Press

Whole milk is heading back to school cafeterias across the country after President Donald Trump signed a bill Wednesday overturning Obama-era limits on higher-fat milk options.

Nondairy drinks such as fortified soy milk may also be on the menu in the coming months following adoption of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which cleared Congress in the fall.

The action allows schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to serve whole and 2% fat milk along with the skim and low-fat products required since 2012.

“Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, whole milk is a great thing,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony that featured lawmakers, dairy farmers and their children.

The law also permits schools to serve nondairy milk that meets the nutritional standards of milk and requires schools to offer a nondairy milk alternative if kids provide a note from their parents, not just from doctors, saying they have a dietary restriction.

The signing comes days after the release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which emphasize consumption of full-fat dairy products as part of a healthy diet. Previous editions advised that consumers older than 2 should consume low-fat or fat-free dairy.

Earlier this week, the Agriculture Department sent a social media post showing Trump with a glass of milk and a “milk mustache” that declared: “Drink Whole Milk.”

The change could take effect as soon as this fall, though school nutrition and dairy industry officials said it may take longer for some schools to gauge demand for full-fat dairy and adjust supply chains.

Long sought by the dairy industry, the return of whole and 2% milk to school meals reverses provisions of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. Enacted more than a dozen years ago, the law aimed to slow obesity and boost health by cutting kids’ consumption of saturated fat and calories in higher-fat milk.

Nutrition experts, lawmakers and the dairy industry have argued that whole milk is a delicious, nutritious food that has been unfairly vilified, and that some studies suggest that kids who drink it are less likely to develop obesity than those who drink lower-fat options. Critics have also said that many children don’t like the taste of lower-fat milk and don’t drink it, leading to missed nutrition and food waste.

Related Articles

Trump administration restores federal funding for family planning after ACLU lawsuit

After Minnesota shooting, Democrats call for Kristi Noem’s impeachment

Trump administration lawyers blessed US operation to remove Maduro from power, memo shows

US apologizes for deporting a college student flying home for Thanksgiving surprise

From Minneapolis to Venezuela, Trump starts new year with fresh risks as he faces midterm verdict

Change affects nearly 30 million schoolkids

The new rules will change meals served to about 30 million students enrolled in the National School Lunch Program.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the new law as “a long-overdue correction to school nutrition policy.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said it fixed Michelle Obama’s “short-sighted campaign to ditch whole milk.”

Schools will be required to provide students with a range of fluid milk options, which can now include flavored and unflavored organic or conventional whole milk, 2%, 1% and lactose-free milk, as well as non-dairy options that meet nutrition standards.

The new dietary guidelines call for “full-fat dairy with no added sugars,” which would preclude chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milks allowed under a recent update of school meal standards. Agriculture officials will have to translate that recommendation into specific requirements for schools to eliminate flavored milks.

The new law exempts milk fat from being considered as part of federal requirements that average saturated fats make up less than 10% of calories in school meals.

One top nutrition expert, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts University, has said there is “no meaningful benefit” in choosing low-fat over high-fat dairy. Saturated fatty acids in dairy have a different composition than other fat, such as beef fat, plus different beneficial compounds that could offset theoretical harms, he added.

“Saturated fat in dairy has not been linked to any adverse health outcomes,” Mozaffarian said in an interview.

Research has shown that changes in the federal nutrition program after the Obama-era law was enacted slowed the rise in obesity among U.S. kids, including teenagers.

But some nutrition experts point to newer research that suggests that kids who drink whole milk could be less likely to be overweight or to develop obesity than children who drink lower-fat milk. One 2020 review of 28 studies suggests that the risk was 40% less for kids who drank whole milk, although the authors noted they couldn’t say whether milk consumption was the reason.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.