Top Democrats have greeted the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent redistricting ruling with the same exhausted rhetoric they have parroted at least 127,000 times. The Louisiana v. Callais decision is — you guessed it — a flaming ball of racism! “Today is a dark day for America,” Democrat National Chairman Ken Martin trembled. “The Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement.” “This is about stripping political power from millions of people,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) quaked. The high court has “sent us backwards in time, back to the 1870s and ’80s, where the South and southern legislators, through terrorism, intimidation, and worse were able to stop African-Americans from having representation in Congress.” Rep. Troy Carter (D-Louisiana) accused Republicans of staging “a mad dash across the South to get rid of African-American representation.”  “It’s a comprehensive approach to creating Jim Crow 2.0,” according to Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina). Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis says that SCOTUS applied “a defibrillator to the heart of Jim Crow.” “Given an opportunity left to themselves without any guardrails, white Republican elected officials would wipe out every opportunity for black people to be elected,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) erupted on CNN. State Rep. Justin Jones (D-Tennessee) said his GOP colleagues were “seething with racism.” He called Republican Speaker Cameron Sexton the “grand wizard in chief,” a Ku Klux Klan reference. Jones decried GOP re-mapping as “a form of Jim Crow terror.” Inside Tennessee’s state capitol in Nashville, Jones burned a photo of the Confederate flag. This confirmed his breathtaking historical ignorance. Jones’ fellow Democrats, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee, hoisted the Stars and Bars in 1861 and defended it in the Civil War. Republican President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant defeated the rebels in 1865 and lowered the Confederate flag across the vanquished former slave states. Democrats then battled pro-black Republican Reconstructionists, oppressed emancipated slaves, and disenfranchised Southern blacks until 1964. That summer, Republican senators overcame a 60-day segregationist-Democrat filibuster and placed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 onto Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s desk. He signed it that July 2.  Today’s Democrats grossly overreact to SCOTUS’ 2026 Callais decision. Conservative Justice Sam Alito’s 6-3 majority opinion reasserted language first expressed in 1943’s Hirabayashi v. United States case: “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”  In Callais, Alito wrote that activating section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires “a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.” Furthermore, states may “draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage.” In her dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan argued: “If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” Can Kagan read the minds of “minority citizens?” If not, how would she know whether the “candidates of their choice” are minorities, Democrats, or anything else?  Also important: Where is it written that minority candidates must represent minority voters? Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District is 61.3 percent black and only 24.5 percent white, the Census Bureau reports. And yet, since 2006, this majority-black, greater-Memphis electorate has voted 10 times to send Steve Cohen to the U.S. House. Cohen is white. Conversely, the Left whines that black Democrats can win only if a majority of voters of color (typically black) elect them. They assume that black contenders cannot secure a plurality or even a majority of white votes. This racist argument suggests that black candidates lack the charm, ideas, or ideas to win white votes, and/or whites are too bigoted to back blacks. Thus, race-obsessed Democrats concentrate black candidates in constituencies that resemble South Africa’s Apartheid-era Bantustans. Predominantly minority congressional districts recall Bophuthatswana, KwaZulu, Transkei, and other black “homelands.” And yet, for decades, constituencies with neither black majorities nor shapes like Rorschach blots have elected black Democrats and Republicans. • Democrat Barack Obama comfortably captured the White House in 2008 and easily gained reelection in 2012, when America was 12.6 percent black. Enough of the 73.9 percent white population supported him to spell victory. • Democrat Deval Patrick became governor of Massachusetts in 2010, when it was 6.8 percent black and 81.1 percent white. • “Eight white-majority districts elected black members of Congress this year,” the Washington Post crowed on Nov. 19, 2018. “That’s a breakthrough.” These included “Squad” members Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts’ Seventh Congressional District (24.3 percent black; 50.5 percent white) and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District. (17.0 percent black; 67.3 percent white).  The Post added, “[S]ix of these eight newly elected representatives took seats previously held by Republicans.” So, racist whites rested their Confederate flags long enough to abandon white Republicans and elect black Democrats. Amazing! • U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) won in 2020, without redrawing the Garden State’s map (13.4 percent black; 65.5 percent white). • Virginians made Republican Winsome Earle-Sears lieutenant governor in 2021 (18.4 percent black; 60.8 percent white). • Minnesotans elected Democrat Keith Ellison attorney general in 2022 (7.0 percent black; 77.2 percent white). • Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Connecticut-05) succeeded on Nov. 5, 2024 (9.7 percent black; 64.6 percent white). • Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Florida-19) triumphed that night (6.5 percent black; 69.8 percent white). • Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah-04) beat the racial odds. (1.5 percent black; 74.0 percent white) If the Left really wants more blacks in Congress, they should push black Republicans to represent majority-white districts. Let a hundred Byron Donalds bloom. Let a hundred Burgess Owens contend! Don’t hold your breath. If black representation drives black progress, why did prominent Democrats from Obama on down campaign for a white woman named Abigail Spanberger for governor of Virginia last November, rather than a black woman named Winsome Earle-Sears? Democrats value something more than giving blacks a leg up: Helping Democrats win, hands down. Spanberger is a left-wing Democrat. So, the spooky speeches about blazing crosses and dangling nooses went unshouted. Instead, the battle cry became: “Shove the black woman aside and elect the white lady.” For Democrats, it’s all about electing Democrats. Period. If they’re black, all the better. If not, screw “civil rights.” Drag the Democrat across the finish line, by any means necessary. ​Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor.

For much of Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war, the conventional wisdom was that Ukraine couldn’t possibly defeat mighty Russia. That wisdom is changing. Volodymyr Zelensky, once accused of having no cards to play, is quickly proving otherwise. Indeed, it may not be premature to consider what a Russian defeat would mean for Europe and the world. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s expanding drone campaign is imposing real costs on Russia. Long-range strikes are hitting oil infrastructure deep inside Russian territory, eroding a key pillar of Moscow’s wartime economy. Sen. Ruben Gallego recently stated, “Ukraine is winning right now.” Ukraine’s commander in chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, has said these strikes have caused roughly $25 billion in direct and indirect losses. The striking part is not only the damage, but the efficiency: Ukrainian drone units are forcing Russia to spend heavily to defend assets that can be threatened by comparatively cheap systems. Robert “Madyar” Brovdi, a Ukrainian drone commander, has said his units spend about $40 million a month on drones while inflicting roughly $4 billion in damage on Russian forces. Even allowing for the fog of war, the claim captures the central imbalance Ukraine is trying to exploit: Russia can still fight at scale, but it is being forced to defend that scale at enormous cost. The reach of these attacks is growing. Russian officials now describe regions far from the front as part of the war zone. Leningrad Oblast — home to key Baltic ports like Ust-Luga — has been labeled a “front-line region” by its governor after repeated Ukrainian strikes. These sites sit roughly 600 miles from Ukraine’s border but are critical to Russia’s oil exports. Rybar, one of Russia’s most popular military bloggers, warned that Ukrainian long-range drone strikes are difficult to stop because Russia lacks enough air defenses, writing that “the attacker is systematically depleting air defenses.” Russian authorities were forced to scale back Victory Day celebrations amid fears of drone attacks. Even the Moscow parade was stripped down, with one Russian politician explaining the absence of heavy armor by saying, “Our tanks are busy right now.” A war long presented to Russians as distant and controlled is becoming harder to contain. In a pointed jab at the Kremlin, Zelensky temporarily excluded Red Square from Ukraine’s target list during the parade for “humanitarian purposes” following talks with the United States. Steven Moore, founder of the Ukraine Freedom Project, said the optics undercut Putin’s image of strength. “Putin just went to Trump and asked him to ask Zelensky for a ceasefire for his military parade,” Moore said. “Putin is showing himself to be a loser, and he is doing this while half a dozen Russian cities are on fire.” Oleg Tsarev, a pro-war Russian blogger, said that “the situation on the front line is, to put it mildly, not very good,” adding that Ukrainian drones are reaching “farther and farther.” Gennady Zyuganov, Russia’s Communist Party leader, has warned that without urgent measures the country could face a crisis reminiscent of 1917. As Iranian drones previously began hitting targets across the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia turned to Ukraine for solutions. U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also recently said American military personnel had been deployed to Ukraine to study modern drone warfare and the evolving tactics emerging from the battlefield. “It is not enough just to have the tools — you also need real experience using them and the same speed of adaptation as the threat itself,” said Zelensky. He has framed Ukraine not just as a battlefield innovator but as a provider of integrated defense systems. That pitch is gaining traction. European and Ukrainian companies signed more than 20 defense agreements in 2025, nearly double the number two years earlier. The demand is already becoming concrete. A Ukrainian firm has received a request to help protect a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz, offering anti-drone expertise. It is a small example, but a telling one: Ukraine is beginning to fill gaps where others hesitate. “Our path is to export finished products with high added value, develop machine-building and the military-tech sector. Ukraine must claim a worthy place on the global arms market,” said Kyrylo Budanov, head of the President’s Office and former chief of Ukraine’s military intelligence service. This is part of a broader shift. Ukraine is no longer operating solely as a recipient of Western support. It is positioning itself as a contributor to global security. Kyiv is restoring ties with countries once firmly in Russia’s orbit, including Syria, exploring trade and potential security cooperation. Europe is also recalibrating. The defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán removes one of the most consistent obstacles to unified EU support for Ukraine. Leaders once seen as ambivalent, or even pro-Russian, are adjusting their positions, while Kyiv pushes forward on its bid for EU membership. None of this means the war will end soon. Russia retains significant advantages in manpower and resources, and Putin seems committed to waging war regardless of how many Russians are killed and the damage that is being done to Russia’s economy and society. But momentum is shifting toward Ukraine and a Russian defeat looks more and more possible, even likely. The implications of such a scenario would be huge. For starters, the shock of defeat could lead to regime collapse in Russia or even state fragmentation. Were that to happen, China could move to reclaim territories Russia seized in the 19th century, while the Russian Federation’s non-Russian nations could demand autonomy or independence. Russia would be transformed from a superpower into a mid-range state with nukes. Its global influence would collapse. Ukraine could emerge from the war as one of Europe’s most powerful states. That assessment is no longer coming only from Kyiv. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently called Ukraine’s armed forces the “strongest, most powerful” military in Europe, arguing that the war has forced Ukraine to develop new tactics, equipment and technology for “hybrid asymmetrical warfare.” Europe, forced to beef up its security by Donald Trump, would become a more influential international player. If Ukraine defeats Russia, the world will be a very different place — all thanks to the foolhardiness of Putin and the inventiveness of Ukraine.

As if The Simpsons weren’t eerily predictive enough, from Trump’s descent down an escalator to the COVID-19 pandemic, things got increasingly spooky with their prediction coming true with the hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship. (READ MORE: Hantavirus Aboard the MV Hondius: A Cruise Outbreak Spreads Across Continents) 

Writers are now being advised to misspell words, vary sentence lengths erratically, insert small grammatical imperfections, and even draft longhand in order to “prove” that in creating their work they did not use artificial intelligence. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, students, freelancers, and professionals increasingly fear that prose that appears too polished, organized, or competent may trigger suspicion from editors, teachers, or employers that AI was involved somewhere in the process. It is an extraordinary cultural moment. For centuries, educated writers struggled to eliminate weak grammar, awkward transitions, clichés, and mechanical prose. Now, they may deliberately introduce such flaws as camouflage. The race is on not merely to write well, but to write “humanly” enough to evade AI detectors and editorial suspicion. The panic itself is understandable. Generative AI has invaded public life like a galloping invasion from The Steppe. Editors and publishers already fending off a drone swarm of submissions now confront software capable of generating competent-sounding articles, essays, pitches, and stories in seconds. Some publications have responded with outright bans on AI-written material “in whole or in part.” Others permit some use of AI but require authors to disclose precisely where, when, and how they used it. The tone is often cautious, anxious, even moralistic. Did you have inappropriate relations with a chatbot? (RELATED: Pensiveness in the Age of Algorithms) Is this concern over standards? Or is it submission to the assumption that standards no longer can be upheld through direct editorial judgment alone? If so, we have a profound change in the culture of writing. I had the privilege of taking many courses with Hayes B. Jacobs (1965-1987), the revered head of the New School Writer’s Workshops. How many generations of New York writers learned from his assessment of essays, articles, and stories? He read aloud the work in hand, commented, and led the discussion. Just us and the prose. For most of the history of publishing, editors did not primarily ask how a manuscript was produced. They asked if it worked. Was the reporting accurate? Was the argument coherent? Was the prose alive? Did the piece sustain attention? Did it illuminate anything true? Writers and editors shared an understanding that standards were enforced directly by reading, criticism, revision, and argument. Nor was the tradition abstract. Harold Ross built The New Yorker (1925-1951) through obsessive reading and relentless editorial scrutiny. Maxwell Perkins at Scribner’s (1910-1947) shaped American literature not by screening manuscripts for ideological conformity or procedural purity, but by recognizing talent on the page and demanding that it rise to its potential. (Reportedly, his epic challenge was the undisciplined Thomas Wolfe.) Robert Gottlieb (1955-2023) at several publishers became renowned for intellectual seriousness about prose itself. Norman Podhoretz (1960-1995) made Commentary into an intellectual force in America by insisting that ideas be argued honestly and written clearly, regardless of fashion. These editors did not avoid judgment. They exercised it directly, often mercilessly. In an appreciation of Ross upon his death in 1951, Time wrote that in the frantic early days of launching the New Yorker, “On the margins of manuscripts [Ross]…scrawled scores of choleric questions and comments: ‘Who he,’ ‘What’s that,’ ‘Don’t think,’ ‘File and Forget.’ He never rewrote a piece himself, but his marginal scrawls often ran almost as long as the article.” I encountered a version of that tradition early in my own career under an editor named Tom Maloney, a witty and analytical Irishman unimpressed by fluency for its own sake. He attacked weak reasoning without apology. He bruised egos routinely, including mine. But what he transmitted was not merely technique. It was a standard. Later, when I became an editor myself, colleagues jokingly referred to my demand for rigorous revision as “Walterizing.” One former coworker stopped me in the street years later to say: “I hated it then, but at my new job I immediately became the ‘Walter.’” And thus, editorial standards are propagated — through friction, criticism, argument, and internalization. We are approaching a world in which strong grammar, logical structure, and stylistic clarity become suspicious artifacts. What is emerging, today, is reliance on proxies in lieu of direct evaluation: institutional pedigree, platform size, ideological identity, social-media following, previous publication history — or now, certification of “AI purity.” Proxies feel safer because they generalize responsibility. They turn difficult acts of discrimination into administratively manageable procedures. Ironic, is it not, that editors insist that AI threatens authenticity and originality? Yet many now rely on automated AI-detection systems that routinely produce false positives and false negatives. Worse, the systems themselves encourage a bizarre new arms race. Writers now purchase “humanizing” software designed specifically to make prose appear less machine-generated. The result borders on absurdity. We are approaching a world in which strong grammar, logical structure, and stylistic clarity become suspicious artifacts. In its guidance to faculty, the University of San Diego Legal Research Center warns: False positive rates vary widely. Turnitin has previously stated that its AI checker had a less than 1 percent false positive rate though a later study by the Washington Post produced a much higher rate of 50 percent (albeit with a much smaller sample size). Recent studies also indicate that neurodivergent students (autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc.) and students for whom English is a second language are flagged by AI detection tools at higher rates than native English speakers due to reliance on repeated phrases, terms, and words. Confusion arises, in part, from an admixture of concerns. There are legitimate questions about plagiarism, undisclosed ghostwriting, fabricated citations, copyright, and intellectual honesty. There are also legitimate anxieties about the economics of writing itself. Editors, literary agents, advertising firms, and publishers all sense that automation may be coming for their jobs, replacing the gatekeepers with automated gates as AI moves beyond “generative” tools to agentic systems that act autonomously to edit, acquire, and market content. In a recent article, ETC Magazine.com puts what I would call an optimistic spin on this: AI is changing journalism quickly, but the strongest evidence from 2025–2026 points to augmentation, workflow redesign, and selective automation rather than wholesale replacement of human reporters. The clearest pattern is that AI is taking over repetitive, structured, or high-volume tasks while journalists retain responsibility for verification, judgment, interviews, and accountability. None of this, of course, establishes that the intrinsic quality of writing can no longer be judged directly. A shallow piece is shallow whether written unaided or with AI assistance. A derivative argument announces itself on the page. Empty prose is empty. Conversely, a genuinely original and intellectually serious piece does not cease to possess those qualities because a writer uses AI for brainstorming, outlining, or revision assistance somewhere in the process. The deeper issue, then, may not be AI itself but institutional confidence. Rules are easier while maintaining the appearance of control. Artificial intelligence did not create this temptation. It exposed it, and that exposure has produced the spectacle of writers and editors locked in guerrilla warfare over signals of humanity itself. One side refines detection systems. The other side refines prose patterns meant to evade them. Software companies sell tools to “humanize” AI-generated text. Editors search for invisible traces of machine involvement while often neglecting the older and harder task of reading deeply and judging directly. The present danger is not that AI will replace editorial judgment. It is that editors overwhelmed by scale and uncertainty may gradually stop exercising judgment at all — and replace it with yardsticks like AI rituals, provenance, and group identity filters. If that happens, artificial intelligence will not have destroyed editorial culture. Editorial culture will have surrendered its defining responsibility on its own. READ MORE: When Billionaires Abolish Economics Pensiveness in the Age of Algorithms