Following this first poster, the pair built up an Instagram following, featuring more artist posters and creating a buzz around Ipswich by putting up pieces “in shop windows and bars across the town, spreading some colour and highlighting the amazing talent of each artist’s on our doorstep”, shares Steve. One poster was discovered by a representative of Ipswich Town FC in a local pub toilet and the team loved it so much that they reached out to Steve and Richard asking permission to use their artwork on the cover of their official Premier League match-day programmes.
“The project snowballed really quickly”, Steve says, “we recruited our friends Kevin Bennett and Andy Mortimer to become a four-man team”, and from that point onward the team set out to gather an incredible lineup of artistic talent for everything that came next. Each poster took the idea of following a football club in so many different directions: “we had the static horse from the Ipswich badge come to life in fantastical style courtesy of Colombian born and now Ipswich resident Catalina Carvajal; Brie Harrison presented a still life with subtle hints to the teams involved; while Kelly Anna imagined a bold powerful character bursting through the fragmented badges of Ipswich and Arsenal”, Richard says. The project found its finish to the season with a collaboration with Ed Sheeran for poster 19.
To celebrate the community that the project has built, the Call Me Ted team recently hosted a pop-up exhibition in Ipswich town centre displaying all 19 of their artist collaborations to date at scale, “we also held artist-led workshops with more than 300 local school children, helping inspire the next generation of design talent”, shares Steve. As well as giving fans the chance to see works in person, the pair have started an online shop where you can get your hands on A3 posters and postcard sets of each match poster.
Whilst the premier league may not have ended in Ipswich’s favour, this intersection of art and football is something that the creative team want to keep exploring: “we’re now planning for season two of Call Me Ted, so watch this space!” ends Richard.
I’m in Rome with my family to celebrate a milestone. We went to the Borghese Gallery this morning and I got to see my favorite sculpture, Bernini’s Ratto di Proserpina. A masterpiece. The photos both do and do not do it justice — so grateful to get to see it in person.
Nathan Gardels is the editor-in-chief of Noema Magazine. He is also the co-founder of and a senior adviser to the Berggruen Institute.
The essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger coined the phrase “molecular civil war” to describe a small-scale eruption in a divided society that is symptomatic of a larger cause and bears the seeds of general strife. This is what we are seeing in California.
If President Donald Trump were looking for some way to reaffirm support for his hardline on immigration among those who voted him into power, he got it last weekend from the out-of-control roving bands in Los Angeles waving Mexican flags, covering everything in sight with graffiti, burning cars, blocking a key freeway, throwing broken up pieces of cinderblock at law enforcement and shooting off fireworks into passing traffic.
As a demagogue like the president knows, such stirring images on the TV or smartphone screen eclipse all other context of what may have led to street turmoil in the first place, not to speak of the standard apologia that “most of the crowd was peaceful.” Worse, they distract attention from the deeper threat posed by the MAGA movement.
In Los Angeles, this danger is unfolding in two ways that are both featured in the malicious rhetoric of the Trump administration and in the president’s deployment of the California National Guard without Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authorization, which was subsequently supplemented by the mobilization of U.S. Marines to control domestic unrest.
The first way the deeper danger is unfolding is through the demonization of whole populations. In this case it is immigrants who are all said to be thugs or rapists, but it could be Gaza’s Palestinians, the Chinese or even the Europeans, also now in Trump’s crosshairs. Once dehumanized in this way, they can either be dispensed with as scapegoats or amplified into intractable enemies with no sympathetic qualities against whom every resource must be mustered.
Second is Trump’s “sovereigntist decisionism” as a theory of governance in messy democracies. This view posits that, as the electorally anointed tribune of the people facing “a national emergency,” he is above the law, indeed is the law as in the monarchic mentality: “I am the state.”
The Talent Of Demagogues
The talent of demagogues is knowing which emotional buttons to push to manipulate the body politic when the opportunity arises. Rather than playing into that game, a wise opposition would dispassionately survey the broader political landscape to determine the chief point of vulnerability in the MAGA movement and focus on that.
The most consequential resistance to President Donald Trump’s sovereigntist decisionism does not come from angry demonstrators, marginalized liberals or a disgruntled Elon Musk, but from traditional conservatives of the likes of the Federalist Society. Their defense of the constitutional separation of powers and states’ rights may well offer the best chance to save the republic from the assault on the checks and balances against too much power concentrated in one place that made America great in the first place. They blur the stark Manichean narrative that MAGA evangelists feverishly cultivate.
This cleavage on the right emerged publicly this month in typical Trump fashion, with a personal attack on a critic that ordinary observers would consider obscure. In a Truth Social diatribe, the president attacked Leonard Leo, a former key figure in the Federalist Society, calling him a “sleazebag” and “bad person” who “probably hates America” — even though he was instrumental in successfully recommending judicial appointments during Trump’s first term.
The proximate cause of the outburst is that Federalist Society associates and their fellow-travelers, along with some prominent liberal constitutional scholars, joined together to oppose Trump’s trade tariffs as “taxation by proclamation.” For these constitutionalists, the president’s actions, justified as necessary to address the nation’s “economic emergency,” are illegal because he has usurped powers that belong to the U.S. Congress, not the executive. They are not only saying so in public, but they have also filed an amicus brief challenging the president’s executive orders in a recent U.S. Court of International Trade case. The court unanimously ruled against the Trump administration, which then appealed in a district court that granted an administrative stay on the trade court’s ruling. This means that, for now, the tariffs remain in place pending further review; the case may ultimately be headed to the Supreme Court.
“The powers to tax, to regulate commerce and to shape the nation’s economic course must remain with Congress,” the brief in support of the plaintiffs reads. “They cannot drift silently into the hands of the president through inertia, inattention or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case.”
“The most effective first line of defense for the states is to join conservatives in insisting on protecting all aspects of the Constitution’s division of powers.”
The cross-partisan nature of this brief’s arguments is evidenced by its wide range of signatories. New York University libertarian legal scholar Richard Epstein put it starkly to The New York Times. “You have to understand,” he said, “that the conservative movement is now, as an intellectual movement, consistently anti-Trump on most issues.” Another signatory, Yale law professor Harold Koh, who served as a State Department official in the Obama administration, told the Times that “despite our political differences, the amici easily agreed, as lawyers, that the president has exceeded his delegated statutory authorities. … By unilaterally imposing unlimited tariffs on worldwide goods, he has lawlessly usurped Congress’s exclusive powers to impose taxes and duties and to regulate foreign commerce.”
States’ Rights
Until Trump’s arrival in the White House, the battle for states’ rights had long been associated with southern segregationists, like Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who fought federal race integration policies during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. In 2025, the tables have turned as the powers-that-be in Washington seek to override states’ policies in a range of areas from environmental protection and energy to abortion rights.
In general, Federalist Society conservatives have been champions of states’ rights as a check and balance against the concentration of power in Washington, citing the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. It has also been an advocate of the autonomous right of states to experiment with governance in their own realms, from abortion and pot legalization to the death penalty and gun laws. Now, these conservative federalist principles may most serve liberal states like California, which are resisting Trump’s overreach.
Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building in Los Angeles amid a series of federal immigration raids. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
The federalization of California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles this week, without the request or approval of the governor, is a further attempt to erode state autonomy, especially since the White House has made clear that it applies to all states, not just California. Newsom has, in turn, sued the Trump administration over the illegality of this act. It is yet another test among many that will define the limits of the president’s power grab.
The most effective first line of defense for the states is to join conservatives in insisting on protecting all aspects of the Constitution’s division of powers. Citing harm to the well-being of its own citizens, the Golden State has also joined with 14 other states to sue the administration using the same argument as the Federalist Society allies — that the president lacks unilateral authority to tax imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without congressional approval.
That these battles over states’ rights and the separation of powers have conjoined liberals and conservatives on the same track is a mark of how serious the threat to the republic has become. The accompanying visuals are set to arrive on June 14 when, in a Soviet-style parade, tanks will roll through the streets and warplanes will fly in the skies over Washington D.C. to mark the commander-in-chief’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. army — while Marines and federalized troops camp out in the City of Angels.
A Late-Stage Republic
This state of affairs brings to mind a recent observation in Noema by historian Niall Ferguson:
“If I could strike a very pessimistic note for a moment, there is some sense of being in the late republic in America today, by which I mean that the institutions of the republic are being corroded by a latent civil war in which the stakes of political defeat become too high. That’s something of what eroded the Roman Republic and paved the way to the Empire. My sense is that history has always been against any republic lasting 250 years. So this American republic is in its late republican phase with the intimations of empire.”
While the policies of the Democratic Party, including on immigration, were rejected at the polls last November, there is no indication that the public favored dismantling the Constitution. Traditional conservatives are seemingly much closer to the cultural temper of the body politic these days than liberals, not to mention anarchic street demonstrators. As such, these conservatives are best placed to blunt the creeping authoritarianism of the MAGA movement that is throwing out the baby of constitutional rule with the bathwater of disdain for the liberal legacy it seeks to erase. Better yet, if liberals join them.
It is the world’s most downloaded ride-hailing app after Uber, and inDrive’s founder and chief executive Arsen Tomsky wants to go bigger.
Since its founding in Yakutsk in Siberia more than a decade ago, inDrive has grown to be present in nearly 900 cities in Central Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere. Now, Tomsky has his sights on turning it into a super-app that offers multiple services including food delivery, groceries, and financial products.
Unlike its rivals such as Uber, Lyft, and Didi, inDrive doesn’t automatically match passengers and drivers. Instead, the algorithm recommends prices to drivers making bids for passengers, based on their origin and destination. Passengers select from these bids, and drivers can accept, decline, or counter with another offer. This model, with people setting the prices, is fairer and more transparent, and gives passengers and drivers more freedom than prices set solely by algorithms, Tomsky believes. Some drivers, though, have complained that they are often forced to agree to lower fares.
InDrive recently launched financial services, and entered the grocery business in Pakistan. Tomsky also set up Ayta AI, which helps people with a stutter sound natural on video calls. On the sidelines of the Web Summitin Rio de Janeiro in April, Tomsky spoke to Rest of World about his strategy and the role of artificial intelligence in his business.
On what makes inDrive’s peer-to-peer fare model unique
It is a fair and transparent model, while our competitors have artificially low fares by giving heavy bonuses and incentives to drivers, and a lot of free rides and discounts to passengers. But they have high commissions or they sometimes increase fares — surge pricing, when the fares go up two or three times even. The algorithms are not transparent.
We take just about 12% commission and we don’t set the fares, the people do — the customers and the drivers. In our system, drivers and passengers see the full information. The drivers see what price is proposed, and they can skip it if they don’t like it. Or they can use special filters: “I don’t want to see too cheap fares.” They have full freedom of choice. And they will not have any negative consequences for skipping. It’s a very different feeling, like being small entrepreneurs.
Human connection and negotiation will always be at the core of our product.
On how AI is used in the inDrive app
Of course, we are also using AI. Within our app, the algorithm works to determine recommended pricing. Our drivers and passengers have the final say on prices they agree on, with each having the freedom to accept or reject. In some cities, we offer the alternative of not having to negotiate, letting the algorithm decide on a fare. It is a second option, not the main option. We are just testing it, and we will slowly introduce it in some cities.
Human connection and negotiation will always be at the core of our product. I don’t want to build one more small Uber.
On inDrive’s expansion plans, and building a super-app
We are entering new segments because we see a lot of injustice from large companies, and monopolies in too many fields. We are beginning to enter the dark store [a shop that exists only to fulfill online orders]. We are testing it in Kazakhstan, where we invested in a dark-store player called Ryadom. We will then go to other countries.
And step by step, we are going to build something like a super-app. It’s very logical for us as we continue to expand and diversify beyond mobility. We have an official goal, to impact at least 1 billion people by 2030. We want to be across the last mile of delivery, and also in the fields of education and health care. I don’t know now how health care and education will fit into this super-app. It won’t be like a Chinese super-app. But I am sure we will find a way. We are looking to pilot in select markets.
On inDrive becoming profitable
This year we are going to become net profitable. As I said, we avoid bonuses, discounts, promotions, and so on. And we are lean — we don’t have thousands of software engineers in Silicon Valley. We have almost 3,000 people in 28 offices around the globe. In 2022, we moved around 1,000 people from Russia because of the war, to Cyprus and Kazakhstan. We also have 300–400 people in Mexico. Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan are our other major hubs.
I don’t want to build one more small Uber.
On exiting Miami, and entering new markets
We launched in Miami [inDrive’s only U.S. market] in 2023 and left in 2025. It was a test launch for us, and we realized that operating in the U.S. is very expensive because of the increase in insurance prices. We can relaunch there in the future, but not for now. For us it makes more sense to be in developing countries, where people are more price-conscious, they value each dollar. We entered Southeast Asia recently, and we are now active in six countries there, including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand.
On why fairness in business matters
I’m obsessed with the question of fairness because I’ve met with a lot of injustice in my life. We can begin with the fact that I was born in the coldest city in the world [Yakutsk]. You can call that a form of climate injustice. I’m a stutterer — that is another injustice. I’ve had domestic violence in my family, and that’s one more kind of injustice. And now I have a real chance to change this for other people with my business and philanthropy.
While Sabrina Carpenter has definitely faced criticism, the backlash Lola Young is currently experiencing says a lot about who society decides gets a pass when it comes to expressing sexual desire.
68223
No matter how far we think society has come, it often lets slip that it still has a massive problem with women being overtly sexual. Actually, scratch that. Society is perfectly fine with women expressing their sexuality, as long as they’re a size 6 and conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But if you’re someone like Lola Young, an artist whose raunchy, bodacious persona shows as little interest in pleasing the male gaze as it does in supporting Reform UK, you’re probably going to draw a lot of criticism.
Young has recently faced a lot of criticism for her overtly sexual and graphic lyrics. And while it’s not to say that other artists haven’t faced similar pushback (we’ll get to you soon Miss Sabrina Carpenter), it’s become evident that people still have particular hang-ups about who is allowed to be sexy, and midsize and plus size women are being kept well and truly on the outs. Let’s delve into this a bit more, shall we?
Who is Lola Young?
Lola Young has become one of the most exciting British music artists in recent years, creating art that resonates with an entire generation of sexy misfits. The 24-year-old’s single ‘Messy’ spent four weeks at number one in the Official Singles Charts. Safe to say, people, including influencer icon Jake Shane and bestie Sofia Richie, love this girlie.
And then we were gifted the genius that is ‘One Thing’, Young’s most recent single, released in May 2025. This song was immediately gobbled up by fans, with Gen Z women especially praising the singer for creating an anthem solely geared towards celebrating the idea of intense female sexual desire.
It’s a power move, with each line centering a strong narrative and reinforcing the very real fact that women are more than capable of being purely motivated by sex. Desire, want, and a lack of emotional attachment are not things sequestered to the male experience.
Female artists are regularly pressured to create songs and write lyrics with a double meaning. Sure, write about sex all you like, but make sure there’s a deeper layer there. It can never be just about that one pleasure.
One Thing by Lola Young is only her saying what 75% of women won’t say. As a freak, I love a sexual positive bop.
As someone who’s personally struggled with trying to embrace their style while still feeling sexy in a bigger body, the insignificance Young places on a traditionally feminine aesthetic is insanely refreshing.
Sabrina Carpenter and Lola Young face criticism for their sexual lyrics
Now, when it comes to hyper-sexual lyrics, we’ve seen the same kind of criticism lobbed towards artists like Sabrina Carpenter and Tate McRae. There have been thousands of netizens on X who, especially during the beginning of Carpenter’s Short n’ Sweet tour, took personal umbrage with the singer’s decision to express her sexuality onstage.
In so many of the users’ posts, it felt as though they were blaming Carpenter for being a bad role model for young girls—shaming her for the outfits she wore, dance moves she did, and lyrics she wrote.
I don’t think you guys really understand these systems you tweet about. it’s not like the goverment sees sabrina carpenter do that dance move and decides to make the patriarchy last longer https://t.co/9NbBXZCcmI
I could spend two minutes on X and find dozens of comments from people insinuating that it’s a female artist’s duty to present themselves in a certain way in public in order to avoid negatively influencing the younger generations. It would take me a hell of a lot longer to find the same vitriol targeted towards male singers and rappers.
sorry to be the friend that’s too woke but this shit is so degrading to women and I hate that this is the box female artists are largely confined to https://t.co/rlyFcuz9DI
This isn’t talked about enough, people get butt hurt over Sabrina Carpenter’s nonsense outros because they’re “too sexual” then they go ahead and listen to male rappers who talk about women like their property and sex toys…
While Sabrina Carpenter’s experience is totally valid, it is also interesting to see the discourse surrounding Lola Young. There have already been a number of girlies on TikTok who’ve called out the hypocrisy of people accepting Carpenter’s style of sex and yet dismissing and mocking Young’s.
I’m clearly not shaming Sabrina Carpenter for presenting herself that way/dressing like that so nobody can say that I’m dragging her. I love how Sabrina dresses and styles herself. I know someone is going to find some way to pick holes in my argument but the hate that Lola Young gets is definitely part of a wider issue that shouldn’t be happening. I think she’s v cool and talented
While it isn’t necessarily productive to compare these two women—they both have valid aesthetics and arguably both use their music to empower women—it is interesting to see how female sexual expression is only palatable in certain forms.
Long story short, no-one can win. Society will always find ways to force women into different boxes, encouraging them to exist only in parameters that compliment specific feminine moulds. However, as long as artists like Young exist, we will eventually bust through those walls, brick by brick.
