Category: Entertainment

Salman Rushdie believed his life was “very normal again” and that fears of an attack were a thing of the past, he had told an interviewer just two weeks before he was stabbed on stage in New York on Friday.

The novelist, who remained in hospital on Saturday, was knifed several times, including in the neck and abdomen. His agent, Andrew Wylie, said his liver had been damaged and that he was likely to lose an eye.

His alleged attacker, 24-year-old Hadi Matar, has been charged with attempted murder and assault.

Rushdie, 75, had been speaking at a literary festival at the Chautauqua Institution in western New York state about the importance of America giving asylum to exiled writers when he was assaulted.

Matar, who had bought a ticket, allegedly rushed on stage and stabbed Rushdie before being tackled by spectators, institution staff and two local law enforcement officers providing security.

Rushdie had been under a fatwa calling for his death since 1989, when the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued it in response to the Indian-born author’s controversial novel The Satanic Verses. The Iranian regime has since sought to distance itself from the fatwa, but the price on Rushdie’s head was increased in recent years to more than $3m.

Many Muslims viewed Rushdie’s book as blasphemous because – among other things – it included a character that they interpreted as an insult to the prophet Muhammad, the founder of their faith.

The Satanic Verses was published a decade before Matar was born to parents who emigrated from Lebanon. But, according to reports, his social media activity suggests an admiration of Iran and an attraction to Shia extremism.

Just a fortnight ago, Rushdie had talked to the German news magazine Stern about his safety. The author said his life would have been in a lot more danger if social media had been around at the time he wrote The Satanic Verses: “More dangerous, infinitely more dangerous.”

“A fatwa is a serious thing. Luckily we didn’t have the internet back then. The Iranians had sent the fatwa to the mosques by fax. That’s all a long time ago. Nowadays my life is very normal again.” Asked what made him afraid now, Rushdie said: “In the past I would have said religious fanaticism. I no longer say that. The biggest danger facing us right now is that we lose our democracy. Since the supreme court abortion verdict I have been seriously concerned that the US won’t manage that. That the problems are irreparable and the country will break apart. Today’s greatest danger facing us is this kind of cryptofascism that we see in America and elsewhere.

“Oh, we live in scary times. That’s true even though I always tell people: don’t be afraid. But the bad thing is that death threats have become more normal. Not only politicians get them, even American teachers who take certain books off the syllabus.

“Look at how many guns there are in America. The existence of all these weapons in itself is scary. I think a lot of people today live with similar threats to the ones I had back then. And the fax machines they used against me is like a bicycle rather than a Ferrari compared with the internet.”

He said he was happy his books were being reviewed on the arts pages rather than in the political sections of the newspapers.

Stern asked him what his advice was for people who were scared of where the world is heading: “I believe something very good is happening in the young generation: it is much more inclined to activism. We are seeing a generation grow of age that we urgently need right now, a combative one. We need people who can organize themselves, and people who are prepared to fight. Fighters. For a society worth living in. Instead of hoping things turn out for the best. As an author I also notice that young authors are becoming role models again – instead of the way it used to be, namely just the dead ones.”

Questions were being asked yesterday about how Kill gained access to the event. Paul Susko, a lawyer based in Erie – the town in Pennsylvania where Rushdie is now on a ventilator at UPMC Hamot hospital – said that participants were prevented from bringing food and drink to the hall but that was all.

“There was screening to prevent attendees from bringing in a cup of coffee,” Susko said. He added that “maybe screening for weapons” with wand or walk-through metal detectors “would have been more helpful”.

Susko, who came to the event with his son, was in the front row on the side of the stage where Matar rushed at the author. “There was no security stopping us from getting to the stage,” Susko said. “There was zero security visible around the stage at the time of the attack.”

Several people in the audience said that Matar was dressed in black and wearing a mask. “We thought perhaps it was part of a stunt to show that there’s still a lot of controversy around this author,” said witness Kathleen Jones. “But it became evident in a few seconds that it wasn’t.”

Chautauqua Institution began life as a summer camp for Sunday school teachers and grew into a major hub of cultural exchange and dialogue. Hours after the attack, the institution’s president, Michael Hill, said the site had seen nothing like it in almost 150 years of existence.

He said: “We were founded to bring people together in community, to learn and in doing so to create solutions, to develop empathy and to take on intractable problems. Today, we are called to take on fear and the worst of all human traits: hate.”

Hill confirmed Matar had a ticket for the event “the same way any other patron would have”. He stressed that the institution was open to anyone, as part of its mission of inclusivity.

Asked whether there should have been beefed-up security with metal detectors present, given the sensitivities around Rushdie, he said: “We are proud of the security we have.”

Discussions were held before Friday’s talk between state and local police and the institution, and two police officers were assigned – a state trooper and a local deputy. Eugene Staniszewski of the New York state police told a press conference that law enforcement had talks with the institution at the start of the season.

“There were some high-profile events they had requested some law enforcement presence be there, and luckily they were,” he said. The governor of New York state, Kathy Hochul, praised the trooper for his actions. “It was a state police officer who stood up and saved his life from him, protected him as well as the moderator who was attacked,” she said.

Rushdie had no security of his own. When asked whether the organizers should have made efforts to filter attendees entering the premises, Hill vehemently disagreed.

“Our mission is to build bridges across difference,” he said. “Mr Rushdie is known as one of the most significant champions for freedom of speech. One of the worst things that Chautauqua could do is back away from its mission.”

The Block has delivered some stunning rooms over the years, but this year’s Room Reveals are set to showcase style on a whole new level.

A new teaser clip – which you can watch above – has previewed the incredible room makeovers we can expect from contestants’ country home renovations in Season 18.

Stream the latest episodes of The Block for free on 9Now.

The footage shows glimpses of beautiful bedrooms, bathrooms, walk-in-robes and kitchens as the judges walk through in awe of what they see.

“Glam-or-ous,” Shaynna Blaze says while looking at a walk-in-robe.

Meanwhile, Darren Palmer looks mesmerized by a bedroom, and is also shown fawning over the gold and green cabinetry on a kitchen bench.

“It’s just breathtaking,” Darren says.

A voiceover promises the Room Reveals this year will offer both “country heart” and “sprawling fields of paradise.”

These inspiring Room Reveals kick off on Sunday with the main bathroom, which teams have been frankly building and styling this week.

READMORE: Scott Cam reveals the winner of Bathroom Week will receive the biggest prize in Block history

It’s never been more important for contestants to win the main bathroom reveal because this one comes with the biggest prize in Block history.

That bonus is a kitchen upgrade worth $250,000, which includes V-Zug appliances and a kitchen workstation from The Galley.

This upgrade makes a huge difference to both a team’s chances of winning Kitchen Week, but also The Block itself. As they say ‘kitchens sell houses’ so a kitchen full of state-of-the-art appliances and features could make a big difference on auction day.

“This is the biggest prize I’ve ever given away – I just want to get my maths right,” host Scott Cam tells teams before announcing the winner.

READMORE: How to follow the cast of The Block 2022 on Instagram

As for the bathrooms, the footage teases beautiful features like a vintage chandelier, gorgeous gold tapware, spacious baths and elegant tiles.

“This is extraordinary,” Neale Whitaker says.

The Room Reveals this Sunday will also be unmissable for Block fans because it’s the first time we’ll get to see what Rachel and Ryan can do.

While the other teams showed off their design style in the House Decider challenge, Rachel and Ryan didn’t take part as they hadn’t even been cast on the Block at that point.

The Sydney parents were last-minute replacements for Joel and Elle who quit The Block after just two days on the building site.

READMORE: Tom and Sarah-Jane’s rookie painting error on The Block leaves their traditions in hysterics

Joel and Elle left after delivering a coastal boho room the judges thought wasn’t right for the house’s country setting. That result meant the pair didn’t get first pick of the house they wanted so they ended up choosing House 2.

It meant Rachel and Ryan ended up with House 2 by default when they arrived on the first day of Bathroom Week.

READMORE: Scott Cam and Shelley Craft give teams brutal feedback on their main bathroom progress

Will Rachel and Ryan’s “contemporary lodge” style be enough to win the big bonus prize or will one of the other teams take it out?

The Block airs Sunday at 7.00pm and Monday to Wednesday at 7.30pm on Nine. Catch up on all the latest episodes on 9Now.

That Salman Rushdie was nearly murdered at an event in New York while talking about whether the United States was a safe haven for exiled writers is an irony he’d have rejected as too far-fetched in even his most fantastical novels. That he was talking at all at such an event – ​​with no personal security, no special precautions – will have been a shock to many, given that he will always be best known, to his chagrin, not for something he did, but for something that was done to him, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against him in 1989.

But even then, when the threats against him seemed to be at the most heated, he refused to be cowed, always looking straight ahead when he walked slowly from his hiding places to his security detail’s car, never bowing his head, never scuttling. If you succumb to the fear, he writes in Joseph Anton, his memoir of that period, “you will be its creature for ever, its prisoner.”

“One thing I feel, well, proud of, let’s say, is if you knew nothing about my life, if all you had were my books, I don’t think you would feel that something traumatic happened to me in 1989. I thought : be the writer that you want to be,” he said when I interviewed him last year.

Yet I persisted in asking, to his irritation, questions about how the death threat had affected him. Because I couldn’t see how it had: in person, he is warm, interested in everything and always one of the most fun people at a party. Only last week I sent him an email, and he wrote back at once, always happy to talk about anything (as long as it’s not the fatwa). He hates how the fatwa shaped perceptions of him as much as he resents how it shrank his life from him when he lived for a decade in hiding. “It destroys my individuality as a person and as a writer. I’m not a geopolitical entity. I’m writing someone in a room,” he said to me. And so, with great determination and courage, I have retained his individuality from him by choosing freedom, with all the risks that he entailed.

So the fact that Rushdie was speaking at a book event when he was attacked is entirely in keeping with the man. Even more characteristic was what he was speaking about: the rights of writers who face persecution. People who have endured far less than him have found themselves lured by the siren song of reactionary conservatism; Rushdie’s great friend Christopher Hitchens was not immune to it, and all that happened to him was he aged.

But Rushdie’s moral compass has never wavered, and he remains a fearless defender of the freedom of expression. In 2015, he was scathing about the authors who objected to PEN America honoring the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, months after the murderous attacks on its staff by Islamic extremists. Peter Carey condemned PEN’s “seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its obligation to a large and disempowered segment of the population”. Rushdie, an atheist who was raised Muslim, retorts: “What I would say to both Peter and Michael [Ondaatje] and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.”

Ignorant people have been trying to school Rushdie from the moment the extremists began to come after him. Looking back on news coverage from 1989, it’s striking how little sympathy there was for Rushdie then, on the left or the right. There was a general sense that he had brought this on himself because he had offended extremists. It would be extremely wrong to believe we live in more enlightened times now. Three years ago, a columnist in the Independent, who had not read The Satanic Verses, wrote, “Rushdie’s silly, childish book should be banned under today’s anti-hate legislation.” Two years ago, Rushdie, along with JK Rowling – herself no stranger to death threats – was mocked for signing what is known as the Harper’s letter, which argued against censorship on the left, as well as the right.

“There’s a youthful progressive movement, much of which is extremely valuable, but there does seem to be within it an acceptance that certain ideas should be suppressed, and I just think that’s worrying,” he said to me. He has been thinking about these issues for longer than some of his critics of him have been alive. In 2005, he gave a speech, Defend the Right to Be Offended, in which he said, “It seems to me to be a liberal failure to say that even though we don’t understand what is upsetting those who say they are offended, we shouldn’t upset them … People have the fundamental right to take an argument where somebody is offended by what they say.” This is not a very fashionable argument now, when Rowling’s name is now considered analogous to Voldemort in progressive circles, and comedians such as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle are physically attacked on stage because someone was offended by something they have said.

Rushdie has always stood against all this, and he stands for much more. It is completely devastating that he has been attacked. The rest of us should think how lucky we are that we only need to look to him to see what true courage looks like. And he should take enormous pride in knowing that he really is both the writer and the man that he wanted to be.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at [email protected]

Jerry and Marge have won the lottery not once, but too many times to count — and luck had nothing to do with it.

Jerry and Marge Selbee are multimillionaires but you wouldn’t know it to look at them.

They’ve lived in the same home they’ve had for 65 years in the tiny town of Evart, Michigan.

This modest existence belies the extraordinary life they’ve been living since retiring in 2003.

Jerry and Marge have won the lottery not once, but too many times to count — and luck had nothing to do with it.

“It was just simple maths. Anyone could have done it,” Jerry said.

Jerry had always been good with numbers, so when he saw a new lotto game being advertised, he picked a loophole very few others did.

‘I did not have to be lucky to win. I had to be unlucky to lose’

The game, called WinFall, had a unique feature: if the jackpot reached US$5 million ($7 million) and failed to go off, the money would roll down to ticket holders with fewer winning numbers.

“I looked at the probabilities of the game and it said that when the WinFall actually occurred and no one won the jackpot, that the prize level would go up by a factor of 10,” Jerry said.

“US$50 for a three-number winner and US$1,000 for a four-number winner and the odds were one in, one in 56 and a half for a three-number winner and one in 1032 for a four-number winner.”

While it dramatically improved players’ chances of cashing in, Jerry quickly realized it could also be exploited.

“Most people are conditioned that [the] lottery is structured so that if you’re lucky, you win,” he told reporter Liz Hayes.

“I did not have to be lucky to win. I had to be unlucky to lose.”

Once he worked out how often the jackpot went off, he tentatively decided to put his maths to the test — and it worked.

“I think what was making me nervous is trying to believe in myself,” he laughed.

“I think it was so easy that it was hard for me to believe.”

Jerry spent weeks secretly withdrawing his hard-earned retirement cash to buy more tickets, before he finally decided to come clean to his wife of 65 years.

“I knew it was time to tell her because my next play was going to be US$15,000 (about $21,000),” he recalled.

To his surprise, Marge was on board right away and joined him in the lucrative syndicate.

“He does this stuff all the time, so I believed him,” Marge told 60 minutes.

Before too long, they had started making millions, but it wasn’t easy winnings.

The couple had to buy hundreds of thousands of tickets, a process that became more complicated when the WinFall was shut down in Michigan.

‘It was not about what he would buy, it’s about the joy of winning, of playing the game, of being involved’

They found another lottery with the same feature 1600 kilometers away in Massachusetts, but it meant driving for 15 hours to keep the money rolling in.

“I would start at 5am in the morning,” Jerry recalled.

“And then I would quit for the evening about 6pm or 7pm so that I could take her to dinner.”

Unsurprisingly, their highly successful scheme eventually caught the attention of suspicious investigators.

But Jerry and Marge were doing nothing wrong — they’d simply done the maths, looking at the lotto as a game of strategy instead of a game of chance.

Their remarkable story seems tailor-made for the silver screen, so it comes as no surprise it has been turned into a film for streaming service Paramount+.

‘It gives you purpose, because once you retire, what do you do with all that time?’

Playing Jerry in Jerry and Marge Go Large is Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston, who didn’t think it was ever really about the money.

“It was not about what he would buy, it’s about the joy of winning, of playing the game, of being involved,” the actor said.

“I think my favorite part of the whole story is that this adventure for Jerry and Marge created an opportunity to reignite that romantic flare.”

The real Jerry agrees. After 65 years together, it seemed there was still plenty of the Selbees could learn about each other.

“We learned that we could work together, that we could travel together,” Jerry said.

“I loved her just as much then and now as I did when I was 15.”

Not much has changed for Jerry and Marge since making their fortune, which they’ve spent mainly on education for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

It seems they wanted nothing more than a little excitement.

“It was something to do and something to look forward to every couple of months,” Marge said.

“It gives you purpose, because once you retire, what do you do with all that time?”

Related Clips