A New York City subway rider was stabbed in the stomach after asking his attacker to stop talking loudly on his cell phone aboard a train Saturday morning, police told the New York Post.The attacker allegedly responded to the request by punching the 54-year-old victim several times in the face before stabbing him in the gut, police told the Post.'I guarantee you they were being loud on purpose to have a reason to stab someone.'The attack occurred aboard an E train at the Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer station in Queens around 11 a.m., police noted to the paper.The attacker jumped off the train at the station and was on the loose, police told the Post, while the victim was taken to Jamaica Hospital in stable condition.The victim's daughter told the paper in a follow-up story that more police are needed in the NYC subway system.“They’re supposed to be on the station,” the daughter, who requested anonymity, told the Post on Sunday. “I don’t really see them as much anymore.”The paper added that the victim was "heading home from his restaurant gig" when the attack occurred.“It’s a crazy world we live in,” the daughter told the Post as her father — a waiter — recovers in the hospital.Commenters on WPIX-TV's Facebook post about the attack agreed:"Despicable behavior!!!" one commenter declared."Sounds about right for NYC," another user said, adding that "NY needs more lenient gun laws for law-abiding citizens.""I guarantee you they were being loud on purpose to have a reason to stab someone," another commenter wrote."F**king animals," another user said."This cant be true — remember when [Democrat Gov. Kathy] Hochul said it's safe?!" a commenter reacted with just a bit of sarcasm sprinkled in."I can’t anymore," another user lamented. "I just don’t get it."Stabbing spike?The Post said the stabbing occurred just a day after a homeless man was charged after being caught on video allegedly slashing two men in their faces on a Queens subway platform last week.More from the paper:Tyquan Manassa, 28, was charged Friday in connection to the Wednesday afternoon attacks on two men on the southbound platform of the E and F train at the Union Turnpike station in Kew Gardens, the NYPD said.Manassa was identified as the stabbing suspect after cops busted him for a separate, unhinged outburst at the Ward’s Island shelter where he’d been staying Thursday, sources said.RELATED: 'White boy,' 'cracker': Subway rider dares to glance at hollering female behind him — so she veers into beatdown mode: Cops “Unfortunately, I feel like it happens so often that it’s kind of like we’re desensitized to it,” Fatima Shahid, 18, told the Post in regard to subway violence.Shahid, who lives in the area, added to the paper that "it does make me feel a little unsafe. I’m glad that I don’t take the train as often as I used to. ... So I feel a little OK, but I know that somebody who does it every day would be scared and feel unsafe.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, was featured along with five other Democrat lawmakers in a video last week urging the military to "refuse illegal orders" from the Trump administration.Neither Slotkin nor the other Democrats bothered identifying in the video precisely which orders were illegal. They did, however, insinuate that the administration posed a general threat to the U.S. Constitution.'To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.'After the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces took issue with the apparent call for rebellion and identified those responsible as "traitors," the six Democrats began painting themselves as victims. In the process of attempting to shift attention from her action to the president's reaction, Slotkin made a telling admission that casts the controversial video in a whole new light — namely that she couldn't identify a single "illegal order" from the Trump administration warranting refusal.The president took notice when Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explained why this was a "BIG DEAL." Crying victimPresident Donald Trump characterized the apparent call for rebellion as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL" and noted in a Truth Social post on Saturday that "MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!"'There is now increased threats against us.'In the wake of Trump's rumblings about possible sedition, the Democrats in the video went on the defensive, reading a similar script.Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, "Donald Trump is threatening me with arrest and execution because I'm upholding my oath to the Constitution and standing with our troops," and suggested that the controversy boiled down to a political disagreement.Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) similarly suggested that Trump's response — not his and the other Democrats' apparent call for rebellion — was cause for concern, claiming, "Because of what he says, there is now increased threats against us." "He should understand that his words have, you know, could have serious, serious consequences," Kelly told CBS News' "Face the Nation," adding that the president's response to potentially seditious implorations was at odds with Republicans' criticism of violent rhetoric in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination.RELATED: 'SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR': Trump demands arrest of 'traitor' Democrat congressmen for 'dangerous' video Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty ImagePennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, another Democrat featured in the video, echoed the same talking points and claimed that Trump's response "reveals far more about his authoritarian instincts than it does about anything that we said. In fact, he made our case for us."Slotkin once again joined the chorus, suggesting in a video statement that Trump "threatened" her and the others with the textbook consequences for sedition "because he didn't agree with a video we put out."Telling admissionThe Michigan Democrat went farther in her Sunday interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC's "This Week," suggesting that Trump was "trying to get us to shut up because he doesn't want to be talking about this," said Slotkin.'Couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said?'Silence may have been to Slotkin's benefit, because she ended up admitting that she issued the call to disobedience without being able to identify a single illegal order handed down by the administration. — (@) "There is such things as illegal orders. That's why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, going back to Nuremberg, right? And it's just a — it's a totally benign statement," said Slotkin. "And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law."When Raddatz asked whether Trump had issued any illegal orders, the Michigan Democrat said, "To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.""So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back," Slotkin said later in the interview.Raddatz pressed the issue, asking, "Couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said? 'If you are asked to do something, if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this.'"The host noted that the video as-is "does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen."The Michigan Democrat wasn't the only individual featured in the video who proved unable in recent days to name a single illegal order issued by the administration.When asked flatly on MSNOW which orders she was telling troops to refuse, Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) couldn't name one.When pressed again on CNN whether she or any of the other Democrats in the video have heard tell of illegal orders from service members or the broader national security community, Goodlander tried talking around the question, alluding only to certain service members' alleged "concerns" about the legality of certain orders.'BIG DEAL'On Sunday, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck flagged Slotkin's admission and noted, "Democrats just told our military not to follow 'unconstitutional orders' — while admitting none exist. WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL? They knew and know, that the message wasn't for our soldiers … it was for the Global leadership.""If a video like this were aimed at Putin's military, we'd assume Russia was unstable or nearing a coup," continued Beck. "They didn't give good advice, nor weaken Trump. They weakened America — signaling doubt to allies and opportunity to enemies. They are tilling the soil color revolution. Reckless beyond words."In the post, which President Trump promptly shared on social media without comment, Beck noted that the alleged offense in question is "not treason but a very serious crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2387." Trump also shared Beck's elaboration on 18 U.S.C. § 2387, in which he noted it is a federal crime to advise, urge, or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among members of the U.S. military with the intent to interfere with American military operations. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

For more than two centuries, the great American novel has tempted writers who dreamed of capturing the country’s soul between two covers.From Melville’s "Moby-Dick" to Fitzgerald’s "The Great Gatsby," from Faulkner’s haunted South to Steinbeck’s dust-caked plains, these novels shaped the way Americans saw themselves. Even in decline, the form still attracted giants. Updike, Roth, Morrison — writers who made words shine and sentences sing. Each tried to show what it means to be American: to dream, to stumble, and to start again.To compound matters, 'Ingram' isn’t just a story of exploration, but also one of self-exploration, in the most literal and least appealing sense.Now comes comedian, filmmaker, and repentant sex pest Louis C.K. to try his hand at what turns out to be ... a not-great American novel. In truth, it’s awful.Road to nowhere"Ingram" reads like a road map to nowhere — meandering, bloated, and grammatically reckless. The prose wanders as if written under anesthesia. Sentences stretch, then sag. The paragraphs arrive in puddles, not lines. There’s an energy in C.K.’s comedy — a kind of desperate honesty — that, on stage, electrifies. But on the page, that same honesty slips into self-indulgence. The book is less "On the Road" and more off the rails.To be clear, I love his comedy. I’ve seen him live and will see him again in the new year. He remains one of the most gifted observers of human absurdity alive — a man who can mine a half-eaten slice of pizza for existential truth. But this is not about comedy. This is about writing. And C.K. cannot write. The pacing, the architecture, the restraint — none of it is there.Rough draftThe story unfolds in a version of rural Texas that seems to exist only in C.K.’s imagination, a land of dull prospects and even duller minds. At its center is Ingram, a poor, half-feral boy raised in poverty and pushed out into the world by a mother who tells him she has nothing left to offer. His education consists of hardship and hearsay. He treats running water like sorcery and basic plumbing like black magic. C.K. calls it “a young drifter’s coming of age in an indifferent world,” but it reads more like rough stand-up notes bound by mistake.The writing is atrocious. Vast portions of the book read like this:I couldn’t see my eyes, but I knew what was on my throat was a hand by the way it was warm and tightening and quivering like you could feel the thinking inside each finger, which were so long and thick that one of them pressed hard against the whole side of my face.Or this:I sat up, rubbing my aching neck til my breath came back regular, and I crawled out the tent flap myself, finding the world around me lit by the sun, which, just rising, was still low enough in the sky to throw its light down there under the great road, which was once again roaring and shaking above me.Sentences stretch on like prison terms, suffocated by their own syntax, gasping for punctuation. The dialogue is somehow worse. Ingram’s conversations with the drifters and degenerates he meets on his journey stumble from cliché to confusion, the rhythm of speech giving way to nonsensical babble.RELATED: Bill Maher and Bill Burr agree Louis CK should be welcomed back in Hollywood Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty ImagesA gripping taleTo compound matters, "Ingram," isn’t just a story of exploration, but also one of self-exploration, in the most literal and least appealing sense. There’s a staggering amount of masturbation. C.K. doesn’t so much write about shame as relive it, page after sticky page. His public fall from grace plays out again and again, only now under the pretense of art. It’s less confession than repetition — self-absolution by way of self-abuse, and somehow still not funny.Any comparisons to writers like Bukowski or Barry Hannah are little more than wishful thinking. Bukowski was grimy, but in a graceful way. He wrote filth with style, turning hangovers into hymns.Hannah’s madness had a tune to it, strange but unmistakably his own. Even Hunter S. Thompson, at his most incoherent, had velocity. His sentences tore through the page, drug-fueled but deliberate.C.K.’s writing has none of that. He tries to channel Americana — the heat, the highways, the hard men who dream of escape — but his clumsy prose ensures the only thing channeled is confusion. As C.K. recently told Bill Maher, he did no research for the book, and that much is evident from the first page. His characters talk like they were written by a man who’s only seen Texas through "No Country for Old Men."Don't quit your day jobIn the history of American letters, many great writers have fallen. Hemingway drank himself into oblivion; Mailer stabbed his wife; Capote drowned in his own decadence. But their sentences still stood. Their craft was the redemption. With "Ingram," C.K. has no such refuge. The book exposes the limits of confession as art — that point where self-exposure turns into self-immolation. It could have been great; instead, it’s the very opposite. The only thing it proves is that writing and performing are different callings. Comedy forgives indiscipline. Literature doesn’t.The great American novel has survived worse assaults — from bored professors, from self-serious minimalists, from MFA factories that mistake verbosity for vision. But rarely has it been dragged so low by someone so convinced of his brilliance. There’s perverse poetry in it, though. A man who was caught with his pants down now delivers a novel that never pulls them back up.

President Donald Trump struck a second deal last month with the world’s largest drugmakers, promising lower costs for American patients. The industry claims cooperation, offering help for consumers and expanded domestic production. Yet those same companies have raised prices on nearly 700 prescription drugs since January.Big Pharma hopes the most unconventional president will fall back on the most conventional policy: granting the largest firms regulatory advantages, taxpayer-funded promotion, and freedom to keep ratcheting prices upward.Trump should expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.Trump’s instincts are right. Americans pay inflated prices, and he has confronted the industry’s excesses. But Big Pharma spent decades building cartel-level dominance. Few industries mastered regulatory capture more effectively. The pharma industry wins higher prices while concealing the system that keeps costs rising.The industry’s tactics follow a predictable pattern. With its right hand, Big Pharma announces a partnership with the White House. With its left, it secures guaranteed government contracts, political protection, and federally promoted products. Independent analysts warn that rebate schemes encourage price hikes. The dynamic mirrors a retailer inflating list prices before Black Friday to create the illusion of deep discounts.The federal government helps tip the scales. Regulatory frameworks favor the largest drugmakers and block smaller competitors, keeping profits high and patients in the dark.Patients pay the priceWhat the industry calls reform resembles a shell game that protects profits and punishes patients. The Food and Drug Administration created an “accelerated approval” pathway to speed lifesaving treatments. In practice, the system advantages the largest corporations. A 2020 study found that increases in FDA regulations boosted sales for major firms while cutting sales for smaller companies by 2.2%. Smaller manufacturers cannot absorb substantial compliance costs, which means cheaper or more effective drugs never reach the market or arrive years late.Patients pay the price. Follow-up studies for expedited approvals lag for years, and many drugs never show clear benefits. Harvard researchers found that nearly half of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval fail to improve survival or quality of life. The FDA withdrew one in four such drugs and confirmed substantial benefit for only 12% of the rest. The drugs generated revenue, but they offered little hope to patients who paid dearly for treatments that did not deliver.RELATED: The hidden hospital scam driving up drug prices, coming to a state near you Deagreez via iStock/Getty ImagesMeanwhile, prices keep climbing. Since Trump left office after his first term, cancer drug prices rose faster than Biden-era inflation. Median list prices for new medicines more than doubled between 2021 and 2024, surpassing $300,000 a year. In 2023 alone, drug companies raised prices by 35%. The Rand Corporation found that Americans spent more than $600 billion on prescriptions in 2022 — almost triple what patients in other developed nations pay.Competition, not cronyismFamilies facing cancer now shoulder thousands more out of pocket while Big Pharma posts record profits. Trump deserves credit for recognizing how unfair practices and Democrat policies pushed drug costs beyond the reach of average households.A better path is within reach. Real reform depends on competition rather than political connections. Trump can break the illusion by opening the market, lowering barriers to entry, and cutting regulatory burdens that keep smaller firms out. He should expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.