An opportunity missed. The post What was Bruce Springsteen’s first movie soundtrack? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Old age. Terrifying. Really scary. An invariably lethal disease. Not just sometimes. Invariably. And I used to think it was lethal, mostly because of mistakes we individuals make: obesity, smoking, careless driving. But it’s not. It can be caused by government mistakes. The rate of suicides spikes because of economic catastrophes caused by federal mistakes on a huge scale. The Great Depression was sparked by an insanely wrong-headed mistake in 1929 and then another one in 1931. The Depression was largely cured by the Federal Deposit Insurance put in place by the New Deal. Then it was born again in an evil way by the Federal Reserve’s catastrophic mistake of drastically tightening money in 1937. The American economy was revived dramatically by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the U.S entry into World War II, which led to a huge and needed increase in Federal spending and growth in the money supply. After that, the economy roared back for about 65 years. Immense increases in the defense budget, a constant growth in the money supply, and making America into a permanent welfare state created what were called “automatic stabilizers” that kept the economy permanently in deficit but also stable and strong. Then there were some hiccups, and then a huge pothole in the road. The hiccups were gimcracks on Wall Street that allowed banks and even groups of buccaneers to create stupendous liabilities with basically the hope and prayer that other buccaneers would always be there to bail them out — and that in the worst possible case, the federal government in the form of the Treasury and or the Fed would bail them out. After all, who would conceivably want to see the USA go into another Depression? But then it happened. Something unimaginable. A personal grudge between the Secretary of the Treasury, formerly head of an immense investment bank called Goldman Sachs, and the head of another investment bank called Lehman led to stepping onto the precipice of disaster. But Treasury would not do it, likely because of the grudge between the two Wall Street bigwigs. Lehman was wildly overleveraged. Its assets were shaky. It needed a “bailout” just for a week or so to keep it from collapse, and the Treasury could have done it with the stroke of a pen and no long-term cost to the taxpayers. But Treasury would not do it, likely because of the grudge between the two Wall Street bigwigs. Then other dominoes began to fall. Had it not been for heroic work by the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, there would have been grass growing on Wall Street and another Great Depression. It came within inches of calamity. This was only years ago. This tells us something: we are NOT Depression Proof still. If there are foolish people playing games with our lives, we can have another Great Depression. A strange phenomenon called Bitcoin has swept the world. Even Mr. Buffett, the world’s smartest man, does not understand it. His late pal, Mr. Munger, called it “rat poison squared.” If he does not get it, if no one I have ever talked to can explain it to me, then it’s dangerous. But TRILLIONS of dollars are invested in it. If the Emperor’s New Clothes are ever stripped away, grass could grow on Wall Street. People will lose everything. Some people. And there will be suicides. And other forms of death. I don’t know if it scares you — but it scares me. READ MORE from Ben Stein: Saving Is a Must Mr. and Mrs. Bureaucrats, Show Us Some Mercy How to Break Inflation’s Back

Gavin Newsom – America’s Greatest Patriot. Don’t be surprised if Netflix cooks up a Pravda-style documentary with that title as Newsom ramps up to run for president. The streaming company’s California-based employees are overwhelmingly liberal — and the company’s co-founder seems positively enthralled with the state’s governor. (RELATED: Something to Hold Against Donald Trump) Liberal bias in the media is hardly a new topic. It was a theme of Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964. And in the 1990s, CNN was derided as the “Clinton News Network.” But media bias has blossomed during Donald Trump’s time in the White House. The ideological posture of Netflix is suddenly relevant because, today, the streaming company just announced it is acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns HBO as well as HBO Max, one of Netflix’s top streaming competitors. [I]f the company’s bid for the company succeeds, its programming would undoubtedly reflect the liberal biases of its employees. As Senator Mike Lee and Jack Posobiec have warned, if the company’s bid for the company succeeds, its programming would undoubtedly reflect the liberal biases of its employees. Jane Fonda’s newfound fear of authoritarianism reflects the loss of monopoly power in the media and in Hollywood held by the left for decades. Only now does she see market power and concentration as a problem. How one-sided are Netflix employees? They contributed more than $17.3 million to candidates and other advocacy groups in the 2024 elections for the presidency and for Congress. Want to guess how much of that money went to Republicans? Less than 1 percent. Skeptics might ask if the donations from Netflix employees only trended left in 2024. Nope. More than 99 percent of the Netflix employees’ contributions went to Democratic candidates in 2020 as well. And the most popular candidates were on the far left of the party — Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. But isn’t it the company’s executives who really decide what Netflix airs? Maybe. But even if so, the liberal leanings are woven into the DNA of the company’s leadership. Start with the founder of Netflix, Reed Hastings. He is one of the country’s biggest donors to Democrats and aligned causes. Last year, he gave $7 million to a super PAC supporting Kamala Harris for president. In 2021, he gave Gavin Newsom $3 million amid an effort to recall the California governor. Most recently, Hastings gave $2 million to the Newsom-backed initiative on redrawing congressional districts. Given Hastings’ political preferences, are we to believe that anyone at the company would dare to push programming that’s critical of Democrats or supportive of Republicans? Skeptics may argue that Hastings no longer runs Netflix. But the company’s co-CEO, Ted Sarandos, is also a big donor to Democrats (with nothing going to Republicans). He’s given nearly $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. And his wife, Nicole Avant, served as ambassador to the Bahamas during the Obama years. Sarandos has already let his personal politics influence Netflix operations. In 2019, after the state of Georgia passed a restrictive abortion law, he spoke out against it and said Netflix “will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court.” He added, “Should [the law] ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.” That’s politicization, pure and simple. The chief content officer for Netflix, Bela Bajaria, is also a partisan Democrat. She made the maximum allowable contributions to the campaigns of Kamala Harris of Joe Biden. And she’s given nearly $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee, according to Open Secrets. She was also the co-host of an $8 million fundraiser for the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020. Contributions to Republican candidates? Zero. Likelihood of even-handed treatment of Republicans? Also zero. Let’s not forget that in 2018, Netflix struck a $143 million deal with Barack and Michelle Obama for original programming — much of which seems to be geared toward bolstering the profile of… Barack and Michelle Obama. Even if the Netflix bid fails, there’s another flawed bidder waiting in the wings: Comcast. For more than a decade, it has owned MSNBC, the far-left news network that now calls itself MS NOW. (RELATED: The New Editor-in-Chief of CBS News Is Not Like the Others) The channel is reportedly being spun off to a Comcast subsidiary soon. But one has to wonder about Comcast’s commitment to fairness, given its prolonged stewardship of MSNBC. The New York Times wrote last year that, “Time slots on the cable network once devoted to news programming are now occupied by Trump-bashing opinion hosts.” (RELATED: The Spectacle Ep. 261: MSNBC’s Rebrand Can’t Save It From Itself) The article also pointed out that MSNBC gave the Biden press secretary, Jen Psaki, her own show and that NBC News reporters bristled over the channel’s liberal politics. (RELATED: Jen Psaki Fawns Over Zohran Mamdani) The Netflix bid has sparked antitrust concerns, given that the company’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery would give it enormous power over the streaming marketplace. The winning bidder will take over the Warner Bros. Discovery TV and movie studios, as well as employees, whose campaign contributions last year were also 99 percent in support of Democratic candidates. When one firm can affect the entire market for narratives and movies and streaming, one should immediately think of central planning and censorship, not freedom of ideas. That’s great news for Democrats. And whoever acquires Warner Bros. Discovery, its employees will have a few years before the next presidential contest to ensure that Americans know Governor Newsom as “America’s Greatest Patriot.” Dave Brat is a PhD economist and a former member of Congress from Virginia. READ MORE: They’re Still Coming After the Kids Battling the Hollywood Hydra

Gavin Newsom’s appearance at the New York Time’s DealBook Summit was met with mockery, as the public made fun of him online for his awkward sitting posture. California Governor Gavin Newsom discussed his new book on The New York Times’ DealBook Summit on Dec. 3, 2025 (The New York Times/YouTube) The Spectator P.M. Podcast hosts Ellie Gardey Holmes and Lyrah Margo discuss the reaction to Newsom’s criss-crossed legs and the negative response he received for saying that the Democratic Party needs to be “culturally normal” and “less judgmental.” Ellie and Lyrah also discuss celebrity Halle Berry’s open criticism of Newsom at the event. Berry called out the California governor for “devaluing women” and not passing the Menopause Care Equity Act. (RELATED: Arrest of Newsom’s Ex-Chief of Staff Prompts Allegations of Misconduct Within the Governor’s Office)  Tune in to hear their discussion! Read Ellie and Lyrah’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Rumble.

One hundred and fifty years ago, a small business in Pittsburgh filed for bankruptcy protection. The H.J. Heinz Company was forced to take this action when the national economy soured, its contractual obligations were overextended, and the company could not pay its debts. Heinz was one of the first American companies to export its products overseas. This public humiliation could have marked the end of the company and curtailed the entrepreneurial spirit of Mr. Heinz, but in many ways, the bankruptcy became a catalyst to work even harder to rebuild and prove a point by achieving commercial success. The Heinz Brand is known around the world today, but in 1875, it was much more localized. Henry Heinz was the son of German immigrant parents who settled in Pennsylvania, and as most people did in those days, the family had a small garden to supply fresh vegetables for their dinner table. Young Henry sold excess produce and enjoyed the extra jingle from the money he made. Catching the entrepreneurial spirit, Heinz began growing more vegetables exclusively for sale, and because he did so well, his parents purchased a small plot of less than an acre so he could expand his efforts. Horseradish was particularly popular in his community, but it was time-consuming, difficult to make, and the odor of the process could be very powerful. Heinz realized he could use horseradish roots from his garden, make the sauce using his family recipe, and then sell the finished product around town. Others sold homemade sauces too, but distribution was limited to a small area, as refrigeration and preservatives had not been discovered to prolong the shelf life of these condiments. Since spoilage was a problem, to prevent this, opaque bottles were used to limit exposure, but also to mask the quality of the product. Brown bottles simply made it hard to gauge the freshness of the sauce. Heinz decided to use clear glass bottles so people could see how fresh his ingredients were, thus distinguishing his product from any competitors. The consuming public welcomed and appreciated this innovation, and as Heinz predicted, sales increased. On a small scale, Heinz had an integrated company. He grew the vegetables, built a manufacturing facility to produce his sauces, and had transportation to deliver his products to consumers. From horseradish, he expanded into other sauces and condiments. Since vinegar was a key ingredient of horseradish, he developed a process to make vinegar, which could also be sold as a standalone product.  And, because vinegar was also used to make pickles, any excess could be used to further expand his products to include canning pickles. Basic ingredients like vinegar and salt were part of making other products, so as one thing led to another, his business expanded to include other sauces, including mustard and something that became closely associated with the company, ketchup, or as they referred to it at the time, catsup. At age 25, Heinz needed more capital to further expand his company, so he borrowed to finance and admitted new partners to help manage the growing company. In the atmosphere of the post-Civil War period, the American economy expanded as the nation reunited and rebuilt. Railroad expansion created jobs, promoted investment, and opened areas of the country to greater trade. Heinz grew its markets, too, but when a global depression created the panic of 1873, demand for consumer goods and the convenience of sauces and condiments diminished rapidly. Despite taking steps to ward off and limit the impact of this panic, Heinz was faced with hard choices. He was further squeezed by a contract obligating him to purchase all the cucumbers produced by a vendor, but as prices fell and cucumbers were in abundance, he was unable to process, much less sell, pickles. The situation proved untenable, and he was forced to file for bankruptcy; it was not a pleasant Christmas for his family, and Heinz developed a deep depression. Heinz’s partners blamed his ideas for expanding the company’s market as a reason for the bankruptcy. Even in his depression, his religious faith compelled him to persevere, learn from his mistakes, and start all over again. Encouraged by his mother and pooling money from his immediate family, Heinz was soon back in business. Using his tried-and-true methods of growing his own produce for manufacture, he moved back to his clear glass bottles with his staples of horseradish, mustard, ketchup, and vinegar. Heinz realized that before the panic, he had created a demand for his products, and while the collapse of the business removed them from the market, once he was back up and running, albeit on a much smaller scale, the demand remained. With his commitment to integrity and as a man of his word, even though not obligated to do so, Heinz paid back all the debts that had been discharged in bankruptcy. He learned not to rely on debt financing, but to grow the company by plowing its profits back into the business. This created slower, but steadier growth; before long, the company was earning substantial profits, building new factories, and expanding its markets. Heinz was one of the first American companies to export its products overseas, and here, too, he created a market to meet the need of providing ready-made food condiments. Over time, Heinz would use global trade to further develop and diversify his company. From his use of clear bottles to show consumers how fresh and appealing his sauces were, he assisted the federal government in developing the Pure Food and Drug Act. Heinz would not be the last entrepreneur to use government regulations to eliminate competitors. He promoted pure, high-quality goods for consumers while advocating that his self-imposed high standards should serve as the baseline for federal regulations of other companies. Thus, from the depressing failure of bankruptcy rose an international company that identified a niche market, created a demand, and met a need that continues to this day. Truly, from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success. READ MORE from Will Sellers: Ford and the Making of Democracy’s Arsenal READ MORE:  Thanksgiving — Beyond the First Feast Thanksgiving Is More Than Turkey Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and is an associate justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com.

Confronted by competition in harmony with the festive season, I see a watchdog pressured to be a crowd-puller in a competitive market. I find stopantisemitism.org relying on a gimmick to fight the hate that was the bane of humankind when the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob strode the Holy Land. I read the citation to pick Tucker Carlson as the top candidate for a dubious accolade. Organizations “bent over backwards to avoid offending the very people we needed to stand up to.” “From downplaying white supremacy to promoting the antisemitic ‘great replacement’ theory, Carlson has built a career turning extremist dog whistles into broadcast-ready talking points, legitimizing voices that traffic in Holocaust revisionism, conspiracy, and hate.” The first noteworthy fact is that stopantisemitism.org stole the thunder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, originator of the annual fanfare. Named after the iconic Holocaust survivor, it long ago began giving crass personalities a medal for “Antisemite of the Year.” Under the enterprising Rabbi Marvin Hier, SWC spanned seven countries and built two Holocaust centers with the brand name, “Museums of Tolerance.” It took the Rabbi and family members’ six-figure salaries to make certain that the Holocaust would never be forgotten. If that conveys brazen commercialism, it’s because it is. The milieu was tolerant, and Jews were not threatened. Their worst day since the Holocaust lay ahead. Oct. 7 peeled away the calm to reveal the hardest truth Jews have to face. A second Holocaust is within the realm of possibility. This gave mega donors the impetus to dip deep. In turn, activists got lured into fighting antisemitism. When a cash cow beckons, you seize the prospect and milk it dry. A political cause is a money trap like no other. Everyone and their aunt is pro-something or anti-something, and no cause quite matches that of being anti-Israel or pro-Israel. They seeded prospects so virile and frenzied as to capture Jewish federations. Recrimination was not swift enough: vast resources mobilized in the wake of Oct. 7 were already misspent. Heedless of the debacle, raw and rampant antisemitism raged on. Communities that once flaunted their identity but now hide it. Synagogues that opened their doors to newcomers but now interrogate and frisk them. Holocaust reflections that were fuzzy are now in focus. Confidence that it was an aberration has turned to panic that a second one is possible. Callous enrichment is one thing. The incapacity to tackle antisemitism better next time is another. Nor is that confined to the American community. Israel’s Diaspora Minister squandered his budget on a conference for strategizing how to combat the scourge. The bigwig delegate list dwindled weeks before the event got underway. The problem? Organizers overlooked a not small point: invitees understood the term “antisemitism” differently. Colloquially, they weren’t on the same page. What kind of general would dispatch troops to the front, not knowing if they’d recognize the enemy? The problem remains unsolved. And the Diaspora remains in turmoil. The bugbear is the divide between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel — if that red line exists in the liberal West where the notion of free speech is sacrosanct. We hear a great deal about the risk of permitting opinions that incite violence. About the cost of putting limits on opinion, we hear little. In any case, governments can hardly be mandated to stop the likes of Nick Fuentes or Candice Owens or Tucker Carlson or Ivy League dons imbuing followers with antisemitic conspiracies. It doesn’t mean governments are not trying to control “unacceptable” speech. Their device to gag and encumber antisemites — aka “critics of Israel” — is not hi-tech surveillance but a detailed checklist. You tick boxes for determining if the target is an anti-Zionist innocent or an anti-Jew bigot. If you think you’re not acquainted with that mojo board, think again. It’s the widely adopted “gold standard” IHRA code — the same as gave President Trump the wherewithal to bring academia to book. Spare a thought for the identikit’s well-meant but misled inventor who never meant it to be used for witch hunts. Kenneth Stern loathes the decisive but divisive tool he developed two decades ago. He “never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.” He meant no more than to “help countries track anti-Jewish bias.” Today, he debunks the “weaponization” of his code to punish “pro-Palestinian” activists, nabbing even Jews. “People who believe they’re combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues. It’s actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.” That’s a very germane assessment. It might indeed go to the root of failed attempts to tackle antisemitism: the inability to think about what it means. When Israel’s minister for antisemitism invited the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt to his conference, he didn’t know that ADL staff had mutinied over Greenblatt adopting the IHRA code. Anti-Zionist to a fault, they were incensed at suddenly becoming blackguard antisemites in terms of the code. Like it or quit, the boss told them. Yet Greenblatt himself is ambivalent about what is and is not antisemitic. He as good as accused Elon Musk of hating Jews after he compared George Soros to the comic book character, Magneto. For good measure, Musk had claimed that Holocaust survivor George Soros “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization, that Soros hates humanity.” Greenblatt looked foolish when he subsequently cleared Musk of making a “Heil Hitler” salute. For the second time, the ADL’s progressive staff hung the boss out to dry. Who could blame Wikipedia for red-flagging the ADL as unreliable? For her part, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, President Biden’s “Antisemitism Tsar,” relied on “classic tropes” to declare Musk an antisemite — Musk, admired by Israelis across the board. No wonder antisemites enjoy free rein. Organizations fighting them are at sixes and sevens, “too timid to call Jew-hatred for what it was,” and deliver programs which “bent over backwards to avoid offending the very people we needed to stand up to.” There is something in Stern’s identikit for everyone not to like. Antisemitism, to take one example, consists of claims long associated with classic antisemitism. “Jews killing Jesus to characterize Israel or Israelis” is one. It was now the turn of Tucker Carlson to be grossly offended. If that’s what antisemitism is, said the podcaster, the New Testament could be banned. It’s a real circus out there when Meta looks to ban derogatory uses of the word ‘Zionist’ as in, “Zionist rats.” What about “Zionist criminals”? Meta okays the term when people accuse Israel’s military of “war crimes.” The “Antisemite of the year” award puts the lid on it. Tucker Carlson will lug his award all the way to the bank. Beneficiaries grown fat sup at the table of the perennial Israel-“Palestine” conflict. Why disturb a state of limbo if it meant no more lucre on tap for combating antisemitism? The podcasting business is brisk, the money big, and the players earnest. READ MORE from Steve Apfel: Shepherds Without Swords Trump Puts the Squeeze on Antisemites. Don’t Let S. Africa Slide. Will the Crazies of Gaza Beat Swords Into Ploughshares? Steve Apfel is many things: Economist. Former founder and Director of the School of Management Accounting. Veteran authority on anti-Zionism. Scourge of antisemites. Prodigious author.

Three Days Grace are only the second act in the forty-four-year history of Billboard’s Mainstream Rock Airplay chart to earn their twentieth #1, “Kill Me Fast” (dated 12/13). Only Shinedown has logged more #1s (21). “Kill Me Fast”is the band’s third #1 in a row, starting with “Mayday,” in January. Kill Me Fast Three Days Grace first charted on the Mainstream Rock survey in ’03 with “(I Hate) Everything About You.” The following year they landed their first #1 with “Just Like You.” Three Days Grace’s first 10 chart leaders were with frontman Adam Gontier, When he left, Matt Walzt stepped in providing vocals for seven #1s.  Since Gontier’s return, the band has scored three additional chart-toppers with Gontier and Walst sharing vocal duties. ### The post Three Days Grace Hit Twenty appeared first on RockinTown.

from Dane Wigington: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Jeff Clark, Gold Seek: Paydirt editor Doug Hornig addresses exactly how a revaluation of gold could take place. There are already hints from the Fed itself, and the benefits to the government are many. What would happen to the gold price? And to gold stocks? Doug shows how a gold revaluation would make a […]