The crowd changing the tune. The post The one song Sting thought his fans ruined: “Disconcerting” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Browser Dating wants your search history — all of it. Your 3 a.m. Reddit rabbit holes, your medical anxieties, your peculiar curiosities about President Trump’s hair, and whether cats plot murder. According to the company’s website, “We all leave unique digital footprints as we navigate the web. This project aims to find meaningful connections between people based on their browsing habits, creating a new kind of dating experience.” Call me a skeptical Luddite (I’ve been called worse), but turning search history into a love language feels less like innovation and more like surveillance with a flirty font. (RELATED: Is This the Stupidest Sentence of 2025?) While the app remains relatively niche, its existence signals something darker about where we’re headed: the complete dissolution of the boundary between private self and public commodity. This is the logical endpoint of a dating culture that has confused vulnerability with exhibitionism, intimacy with data sharing, and connection with constant monitoring. Dating apps didn’t start here. (RELATED: Loneliness Is the New Oil) They began simply enough — photos, age, location. Then came personality quizzes, Spotify playlists, and political filters. Each step promised a more “authentic” match, but what it really delivered was deeper profiling. Now we’ve arrived at the inevitable destination: the monetization of our most private moments. Some in the tech space call this “honesty,” but there’s nothing honest about turning your browser history into bait. When we turn our search history into a dating profile, we’re not opening up — we’re outsourcing our inner lives to machines, selling our psychological fingerprints in exchange for a shot at digital chemistry. The distinction matters. Real intimacy develops through time, through shared experiences, through the gradual revelation of self that comes with earned trust. It grows through awkward silences, inside jokes, long walks, and hard conversations. It’s shaped by things that don’t translate into data: how someone holds eye contact when you’re vulnerable, how they respond when you fail, whether they remember the small things you mentioned weeks ago. What Browser Dating offers is intimacy theater: the appearance of deep knowledge that skips the one thing that makes love real — human effort. Browser Dating’s central promise — that your search history reveals your “true self” — rests on a fundamental category error. It mistakes the noise your brain makes when no one’s looking for some essential truth about who you are. Your late-night spirals into WebMD or conspiracy forums don’t define you any more than a crumpled grocery list defines your values. These are fragments of curiosity, panic, boredom, desire — scattered and fleeting. Out of context, they’re meaningless. But fed into an algorithm, they’re turned into patterns, packaged as insight, and sold back to you as compatibility. Your browser history isn’t your soul. Your browser history isn’t your soul. It’s the digital equivalent of picking your nose — natural, necessary, and not meant for public consumption. These moments of private exploration are psychologically essential. They’re how we process the world without performance, without audience, without judgment. When that space gets colonized by the attention economy, we lose something we can’t get back: the ability to exist independently of external validation. This represents more than just another privacy violation — it’s the systematic erosion of solitude itself. We’ve become a civilization that can’t bear to have a single thought go unmonetized, every digital impulse fed into the attention economy’s insatiable maw. The psychological space we need to exist as whole human beings shrinks with each new app promising to “optimize” human connection. Romance, at its core, requires mystery. Not deception or game-playing, but the genuine mystery of another person’s inner life. Dating apps systematically destroy this mystery by front-loading information that should develop naturally, turning discovery into a checklist, replacing the delicious uncertainty of getting to know someone with the false certainty of profile data. But hearts aren’t search engines. Love isn’t a matching algorithm. Romance isn’t an optimization problem that can be solved with better data inputs. The deeper issue is what this reveals about Silicon Valley’s chronic misunderstanding of human problems. Tech companies assume that loneliness is a matching problem rather than a social and cultural crisis, and that better algorithms can solve fundamentally human challenges requiring human solutions. They’ve built an entire industry on the premise that connection can be engineered, that compatibility can be calculated, that love can be optimized. Consider what we’ve lost along the way: the subtle art of reading a room, the nerve it takes to walk up to someone without a compatibility score in hand, the thrill of being caught off guard by who we’re drawn to, the slow burn of attraction that unfolds over time. That kind of connection can’t be coded. It has to be lived. We’ve traded serendipity for swipes, mystery for metadata, and genuine uncertainty for the false certainty of curated matches. The most radical act in our hyper-connected age might be the simplest: keeping some things to ourselves, meeting people in physical spaces where algorithms can’t mediate every interaction, and trusting that love — unpredictable, inefficient, analog love — will find a way. Not curated, not optimized, not reverse-engineered from search data, but discovered in the pauses and imperfections. In a glance held too long. In a joke that lands wrong but still makes you laugh. In the slow unfolding of two flawed people trying to understand each other. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: We Owe Brad Pitt an Apology. Seriously. He Loved You More Than Life Itself — And It Killed Him The Masculinization of the Modern Woman The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

For the better part of the last decade, Democrats have positioned themselves as the party of principle, endlessly chiding their Republican opposition about the need to put “country over party” when it came to Donald Trump and his numerous shenanigans. They weren’t entirely wrong — there were moments when GOP officials could have shown some more backbone on important issues. But now, with socialist and anti-police Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, Democrats face their own test of principle. Will they practice what they’ve preached? Naturally, one might have thought that these same Democrats would be almost tripping over themselves to denounce Mamdani for the sake of putting our country over party. Where are the courageous Democrats willing to stand up to the party line? Where are the principled voices warning about the dangers of extremism? Has anyone heard from Eric Swalwell? I’m not holding my breath—and neither should you. So far at least, the answer to that question seems to be a resounding “no.” (RELATED: The Cuomo Comeback Is Dead — And So Might Be the Old Democratic Party) Instead, we’re seeing the same partisan rallying that Democrats condemned when Republicans did it with Trump. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have enthusiastically backed Mamdani from the beginning. But the party establishment seems to already be falling into line — New York Governor Kathy Hochul is heaping praise on the campaign he ran, and even former moderate champions like Bill Clinton have more or less endorsed him. (RELATED: The Left, Radical Left, and Democrats: Three Peas, One Pod) The parallels to Trump’s rise in 2016 are uncanny, just on a more local level. In 2016, establishment Republicans watched in horror as an outsider candidate with positions considered to be too extreme rose steadily in the polls and captured their party’s nomination. Democrats condemned them mercilessly for falling in line, for putting “party over country.” They demanded Republicans show courage, reject their nominee, and support a more moderate alternative — even if it meant crossing party lines. Now, the shoe’s on the other foot — but unlike what so many said about Donald Trump, Mamdani is actually a deeply ideological, radical candidate. His campaign pledges read like a wishlist designed to drive businesses and middle-class families out of New York. His campaign proposes a new minimum wage for the city of $30 an hour by 2030. He wants government-owned grocery stores and plans to raise the corporate tax rate. (RELATED: Government Stores in NYC? Yes!) But it’s not just his economic policies that should be so alarming to otherwise sensible Democrats. His past positions on public safety to his obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make him completely unfit to serve as the city’s mayor. He has repeatedly called for defunding the police, going so far as to call the NYPD “wicked and corrupt.” Additionally, he has become embroiled in controversies of antisemitism by defending calls to “globalize the intifada.” The man wasted little time in the aftermath of the October 7 terrorist attack — the very next day, he had already released a statement condemning Netanyahu for his actions without any mention of Hamas. Unlike the situation that Republicans found themselves in throughout Trump’s first term, though, Democrats do not need to switch parties to oppose Mamdani and his radical policies. The current mayor, Eric Adams, has been a Democrat for decades and is running for reelection as an independent. In stark contrast to Mamdani’s radicalism and unrealistic proposals, Adams represents both meaningful reform on what matters to everyday New Yorkers — namely, housing prices — with stability in support of law enforcement. To their credit, there have been a few Democrats who have come out against their party’s nominee. Representative Laura Gillen (D-NY) has denounced him as “too extreme to lead,” specifically referencing his numerous calls to defund the police as well as his open embrace of antisemitism. But she remains a lonely voice in the party. Only time will tell if more will follow. For Democrats who truly believe in putting country over party, the choice should be clear. Sometimes defending your values means voting against your party’s nominee. They said it themselves — now it’s time to prove they meant it. READ MORE from Kyle Moran: Making Tariffs Ugly Again Kyle Moran is an analyst specializing in international affairs and national security. His research has been published in the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project, and his commentary has been featured widely in outlets including RealClearPolitics and the Washington Examiner. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

There was a time, not long ago, when Americans — regardless of region, class, or politics — shared a common cultural foundation. From the Saturday morning cartoons children watched to the nightly news programs adults relied on, mainstream culture was both a mirror and a glue: it reflected our values while keeping us tethered to the same national experience. That era is over. We have entered the Age of Alternative Culture, an era defined by fragmentation, algorithmic echo chambers, and cultural isolation masquerading as global connection. The culprit is not a single villain but a confluence of forces, chief among them the rise of the Internet and the omnipresence of algorithmically curated content. Social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram don’t just reflect our preferences; they shape them, refining our tastes and beliefs into niche categories optimized for engagement. Every scroll reinforces what the algorithm thinks you want, narrowing your worldview under the guise of preference. (RELATED: Loneliness Is the New Oil) We are becoming numbers on a screen in an illusion of mass connectivity, our eyes more valuable than our minds. The consequence is a culture atomized into digital micro-nations, where people live in parallel realities consuming different music, news, humor, and values. There is no longer a mainstream — there are now only streams, and each of us is drowning in our own. (RELATED: Why Gen Z Is Giving Up on Sex, Love, and Each Other) Today, we don’t just have factions — we have an entire society of factionalized individuals. This isn’t just a shift in entertainment or media. It’s a foundational change in how we form identity and community. The old model of regional culture is quickly dissolving. No longer anchored to geography or tradition, young people today derive culture from hyper-specific online communities: fandoms, meme subcultures, or identity-based categorizations that range from sexual orientations to aesthetic tribes like “cottagecore” or “dark academia.” A Gen Z teenager in Pennsylvania may have more in common with a TikTok friend in Brazil than with her own neighbors. In the name of globalization, the Internet has erased our cultural map and replaced it with the promise of infinite connection, with the result of profound loneliness. Although COVID didn’t create this fracturing, it supercharged it. Lockdown policies, which forced an entire generation into isolation, made the Internet not just a pastime but a lifeline. For young people, especially Gen Z, this meant their formative years were spent entirely online — and not just for school on Zoom. As churches, schools, and town squares were removed as an option for these children, the screen became their sanctuary. The real world shrank. The digital world expanded. And with it, our common culture evaporated. What is left of a common American culture today? Sports, perhaps. Some major brands like Taylor Swift through her Eras Tour, or the 2023 release of films “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” pierced the collective culture enough to send masses to real-world events. But even these moments were meant for posting on social media, and they were consumed differently among audiences who debate and interpret in fragmented online subgroups. The news media are no better. One person’s truth is another person’s “fake news,” and shared national narratives have been replaced by conflicting feeds and podcasts curated to reaffirm our personal biases. The implications are more than cultural — they are political. James Madison, in “Federalist No. 10,” warned us against factions — groups of citizens “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Today, we don’t just have factions — we have an entire society of factionalized individuals. And when there is no longer a shared moral language or cultural foundation, debate becomes impossible. Politics becomes tribal. Compromise becomes weakness. Interestingly, the generational divide isn’t just partisan — it transcends party lines. Consider recent arguments on foreign policy about President Donald Trump’s military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. Many younger Americans, regardless of political affiliation, were more likely to oppose it. Older Americans were more comfortable supporting forceful intervention. Compare this to the 1960s, when the youth’s motto was, “Don’t trust anyone over the age of 30.” While the Baby Boomers were the first to rally against the Vietnam War, in due time, they inevitably became the contemporary adults they used to oppose. Back then, their parents may have had their own preferences over listening to the Beatles or the Rolling Stones — but they knew too well who these popular bands were. Today, could a modern mom or dad tell you who influencers like Emma Chamberlain, Mr. Beast, or Charli D’Amelio are? They may not even be able to name a Taylor Swift song beyond her more-than-a-decade-old “Shake It Off” or “Love Story.” And who is that Sabrina Carpenter girl, and what good movies has Disney even released in the past 10 years? (RELATED: Man’s Best Friend, or Women’s Worst Enemy: The Downfall of Sabrina Carpenter) Kids have access to entire catalogues of earlier decades’ culture, from movies and TV shows to literature and music. The vastness of possibilities either leaves them paralyzed as they fall through a trapdoor of recommended content, or so desperately alone in their personal journey of artistic discovery and appreciation. This raises the paradox of our time: If everything is alternative, is anything truly alternative? We live in an age where every subculture has a million followers and a merchandise line. Every niche has been monetized. The aesthetic of rebellion has been algorithmically repackaged and sold back to us. Every counterculture has a corporate sponsor. Authenticity itself is an endangered species. The Age of Alternative Culture is not an age of freedom — it is an age of curated individuality, where our “unique” tastes are predicted by machines. We are caged by our own nonconformity as we walk in painful isolation, parallel with other people our age. Where do we go from here? Perhaps the answer lies in rediscovering real-world communities, intergenerational dialogue, civic engagement, and shared traditions. Not to return to the past, as nostalgia may tempt us, but to build a new common culture. This should not be imposed from the top down but cultivated from the bottom up. Because if we don’t, we risk becoming a nation of strangers, living side by side but speaking in tongues, each convinced the other is living in a different world. And maybe we are. READ MORE from Julianna Frieman: Gavin Newsom Wants To Be Donald Trump So Badly The Cuomo Comeback Is Dead — And So Might Be the Old Democratic Party Democrats Denounce Trump’s Iran Strike Julianna Frieman is a writer based in North Carolina. She received her bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is pursuing her master’s degree in Communications (Digital Strategy) at the University of Florida. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that parents may have their children opt out of classes using “LGBTQ” literature they object to on religious grounds. The 6-3 decision has merit, but leaves aside a better solution: the right of parents to opt out of the government monopoly K-12 education system. The parents involved in the case sent their children to the schools the government wanted them to attend, in their own area of residence. If parents find the quality of instruction to be lacking and opt for a better arrangement, their tax money continues to support the system, hardly a model of fairness or efficiency. (RELATED: Supreme Court Saves Religious Parents From Radical LGBTQ Indoctrination of Their Children) Tax dollars must trickle down through multiple layers of bureaucratic sediment — federal, state, county, as in California, and local, before they reach students in the classroom. This is not the model in higher education, where the dollars follow the scholars. Veterans, for example, could take their GI Bill funding to UCLA, Brigham Young, or Columbia University. Dissenting justice Elena Kagan chose to attend Princeton and Harvard Law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson chose Harvard and Harvard Law School. Justice Sotomayor chose to attend Princeton and Yale Law School. Former President Barack Obama attended the prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii. He then chose Occidental College in Los Angeles, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. Yet the former president, like the dissenting justices, backs a wasteful system that restricts choice and now favors indoctrination over education. Parents nationwide have to wonder if former President Obama and the dissenting justices were ever subjected to books such as Prince & Knight, about two male knights who marry each other; Love Violet, about two young girls falling in love; and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope. These were the books students aged 5-11 were required to read. These titles, and other LGBTQ materials, are hard to find among works of children’s literature that have stood the test of time. As parents nationwide should know, religious faith is not required to find LGBTQ material objectionable. As Bruce Bawer (A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society) explains, homosexuality and transgenderism are entirely different phenomena. So the LGBTQ formulation is a construct derived from reality dysphoria, a malaise that has no place in education. Parents of all belief systems can’t be blamed for objecting to gender indoctrination. The right to opt out should now be extended to the entire government monopoly system. The trouble is that the system remains fully deployed against parental choice. Consider Harvard alum Arne Duncan, President Obama’s choice for education secretary. In Washington, D.C., the best alternative to dysfunctional government schools is the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program, a school-choice program run by Congress. Teacher cartels and education bureaucrats oppose that choice program and all others. Secretary Duncan not only opposed the program but canceled scholarships already granted, a move decried even by the Washington Post. Duncan headed a federal Department of Education that dates from the administration of Jimmy Carter, his payback to the teacher unions that supported him in 1976. In March, President Trump issued a fact sheet ordering the secretary to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the states. “I want every parent in America to be empowered to send their child to public, private, charter, or faith-based school of their choice,” the president wrote. That’s not what the woke education establishment wants, so as Trump likes to say, parents will have to see what happens. In the meantime, they can opt out of the gender propaganda the system now inflicts on children. That’s a victory worth celebrating. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: WHO’s Out First? Not for EVs Only Mexico’s Gun Case Backfires Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

For decades, the United States and Iran have engaged in a grinding, low-intensity conflict defined more by threats and diplomatic maneuvering than by direct action. American policymakers across multiple administrations consistently voiced strong opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional destabilization efforts. Yet the response remained predictable: economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and carefully worded statements of concern. That pattern was decisively broken in 2025, when President Trump ordered a direct and devastating strike on two of Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facilities. While progressive lawmakers like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rushed to frame the operation as reckless and unconstitutional, centrist Democrats remained noticeably quieter. The operation targeted the Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites — two pillars of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The damage was both symbolic and operational. Israeli defense officials described the results as “strategically disabling.” Perhaps more telling than the physical destruction was Iran’s almost immediate decision to halt its ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities and agree to an informal ceasefire. Trump’s decision marked one of the most significant departures from traditional U.S. policy toward Iran in over a decade. Under President Barack Obama, American foreign policy leaned heavily on negotiation and soft power. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was intended to curb Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief. In practice, however, the agreement failed to address Iran’s growing ballistic missile program and its support for proxy militias across the Middle East. Worse still, it failed at its core objective: halting Iran’s nuclear program. In 2018, the Trump administration made the correct decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. What had been promoted as a diplomatic solution quickly became a mechanism for Iran to secure billions of dollars in sanctions relief while continuing its nuclear activities behind the scenes. When Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, revealed a 55,000-page archive proving Iran’s blatant violations of the deal, Trump’s decision to exit was fully justified. The contrast in leadership styles between Trump and Obama is particularly stark when viewed alongside the 2009 Green Movement, when millions of Iranians protested election fraud and political repression. The Obama administration refrained from offering vocal support, citing concerns about interfering in Iran’s domestic affairs. In retrospect, most foreign policy experts now view that silence as a missed opportunity to weaken the Iranian regime from within. Obama later admitted that failing to support the Green Movement was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. The reason for that decision is no mystery. From the start of his administration, Obama prioritized reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. Speaking out against the regime would have jeopardized those negotiations. It was a clear case of placing personal diplomatic ambitions above America’s long-term strategic interests. Fast forward to 2025, and Trump’s approach left no room for ambiguity. The message was clear: hostile actions like Iran’s accelerating nuclear development would meet immediate and tangible consequences. Iran’s decision to de-escalate following the strike proved a simple truth that too many in Washington ignored for years — strength, not hesitation, creates deterrence. The domestic political response revealed familiar divisions. Progressive media outlets sounded alarms about constitutional overreach and the risk of regional war. Members of Congress debated whether the president had exceeded his authority by launching the strike without prior legislative approval. Yet despite the outrage from the Left, public opinion told a different story. A post-strike survey conducted by Pew Research Center found that nearly half of self-identified Democrats expressed at least moderate support for the operation, surprising many observers. Even within Democratic leadership, the response to the strikes was not all negative. Dakarai Larreitt, a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Alabama, reflected this nuanced view in a recent interview. When asked about the constitutionality of Trump’s decision, Larreitt stated, There’s an important nuance here. A full declaration of war obviously belongs to Congress, but the War Powers Resolution exists for a reason. In situations where there’s an immediate threat, presidents are expected to act quickly. Whether this was the right call isn’t something I can judge without full access to the intelligence, but from a legal standpoint, it is within the executive’s emergency powers. Such comments highlight a growing recognition, even within Democrat circles, that deterrence sometimes requires decisive action. While progressive lawmakers like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rushed to frame the operation as reckless and unconstitutional, centrist Democrats remained noticeably quieter. Many recognize that voters, especially in swing states, tend to reward displays of strength on national security. The long-term international consequences remain to be seen. Some argue that the strike did not permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. That may be true, but it misses the broader point. After years of inaction and failed diplomatic efforts, Trump’s decision reasserted America’s willingness to defend its allies and interests through force when necessary. Whether future administrations will continue this more assertive standard of deterrence or revert to older strategies of negotiation and restraint remains uncertain. What is clear is that the 2025 strikes will be studied for years as a case study in how prompt, decisive military action — controversial though it may be — can produce short-term stability in moments of high-stakes confrontation. In the end, Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was a strategic declaration that American patience has limits — and that crossing those limits comes with consequences. READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: Is It About the Jet, or Just About Trump? Even Democrats Are Turning on the Party Over School Choice The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

In a scathing letter to Harvard on June 30, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism concluded that the university’s actions towards Jewish students, faculty and staff since Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 is “deliberately indifferent” towards anti-Semitic harassment, and “…is in violent violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” The Task Force fleshed out these claims in a whopping 57-page report. Highlights of the letter and report are below. The Trump administration threatened that if Harvard failed to enact immediate changes, the university would lose all federal money. Alternatively, the Trump administration stated that Harvard is allowed to operate without any federal funding. (RELATED: Harvard’s Sacred Cash Cows) The Trump administration found that almost 60 percent of Jewish students experienced negative bias or discrimination at Harvard, while 26 percent felt physically unsafe. A culture of fear set in among Jewish and Israeli students, and experiences of the students included being spat on in the face for wearing a yarmulke, being stalked on campus, and being jeered by peers with calls of “Heil Hitler.” Some students admitted to hiding their kippas or otherwise concealing their Jewish identity out of fear of harassment. Mere weeks following the October 7 attack, a Jewish Israeli student was blocked by a group of students from accessing shared campus space, accosted with chants of “shame,” and physically assaulted for attempting to film a pro-Palestinian rally. While the incident was videotaped, the prosecution was significantly delayed as Harvard University police refused to assist in identifying most of the participants in the video. Only 18 months after the video was published, two students were charged with assault. However, Harvard then appointed one of the students as a class marshal for its 2025 graduation ceremony, and awarded the other a $65,000 Harvard Law School fellowship. The Trump administration maintained that demonstrations blocked Jewish students’ access to shared spaces at Harvard at least a dozen times since the October 7 attack. Additionally, demonstrations violated Harvard’s rule of conduct and included calls for genocide and the murder of Jews. Additionally, an encampment overran the school for several weeks, creating a culture of fear among Jews on campus, and Harvard meted out “lax and inconsistent” discipline on those responsible for the encampment, and discipline that was reviewed was often “downgraded.” Very few students ended up receiving any discipline at all, and none were suspended. The ball is now in Harvard’s court. Unless it makes immediate reforms to change its culture of “deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism,” it will risk losing all federal funding. READ MORE from Steve Postal: Trump, Bibi Agree on Framework for Middle East Peace Israel’s Greatest Hits So Far in Days Long War Against Iran The Terrorists/Journalists of Gaza The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

The Battle of Gettysburg, fought on the first three days of July in 1863, resulted in more than 51,000 total casualties (dead, wounded, missing, captured), including more than 7,000 dead, yet it began by accident on the morning of July 1, 1863. Neither side planned to fight at Gettysburg, but as both armies approached south-central Pennsylvania, the road networks drew them toward that town of about 2,400 residents. Once the fighting started, more than 160,000 soldiers occupied the town and its surroundings. In late June 1863, General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was engaged in its second invasion of the north, hoping to fight a defensive battle on ground of its own choosing that would force the Union to make peace. The Union Army of the Potomac, having been defeated by Lee’s army at Fredericksburg in December 1862 and Chancellorsville in May 1863, switched commanders, with General George Meade replacing General Joseph Hooker. Meade’s army was searching for the Army of the Potomac with the intention of fighting in northern Maryland along a stream called Pipe Creek. Meade, from his headquarters in Taneytown, Maryland, issued the Pipe Creek Circular on June 30, 1863, which planned for a defensive battle along a line “with the left resting in the neighborhood of Middleburg, and the right at Manchester, the general direction being that of Pipe Creek.” Meade ordered General John Reynolds to withdraw from Gettysburg and redeploy at Middleburg. Union cavalry led by General John Buford entered Gettysburg on June 30, establishing temporary headquarters at the Eagle Hotel and later at the Lutheran Seminary located on Seminary Ridge. Buford’s scouts spotted Confederate infantry marching towards Gettysburg in large numbers. On June 30, Buford decided to hold at Gettysburg until Reynolds’s infantry arrived. But before Reynolds could get there, Confederate troops led by General Henry Heth’s two brigade commanders, James Archer and Joseph Davis, moved toward the town along the Chambersburg Pike. At around 7:30 am, one of Buford’s forward-posted vedettes (Marcellus E. Jones from Illinois) fired the first shot that began the Battle of Gettysburg. General Lee had ordered Heth not to bring on a general battle, but believing he was dealing with a small militia force, Heth decided to fight it out. He soon learned that he was engaged with Federal cavalry, but continued moving forward under the belief that his infantry regiments could easily defeat dismounted cavalry. But Buford’s men were stubborn that morning. So Heth kept pouring in more infantry, and Buford’s men fell back from Herr Ridge to McPherson’s Ridge. Before the Southerners could rout Buford’s cavalry, Reynolds’s infantry arrived in force, led by the Iron Brigade, and stormed into a wooded area near Willoughby Run. The fighting was intense on both sides of the Chambersburg Pike. Reynolds was killed by a Confederate sharpshooter. The Confederates’ superior numbers pushed the Union infantry back to Seminary Ridge. Meanwhile, Southern troops arrived from the north, forcing Union forces through the town toward Cemetery Hill, Culp’s Hill, and Cemetery Ridge — the high ground east and south of the town. General Lee ordered General Richard Ewell to take Cemetery Hill “if practicable,” but Ewell decided it was not practicable, and Union forces held the high ground on the evening of July 1. Historian Noah Andre Trudeau, whose Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage is one of the best one-volume studies of the battle, writes that the fighting on July 1 was a “battle of brigades and regiments, not of divisions and armies.” “Nowhere was it written in stone,” he continues, “that the two sides would fight at Gettysburg, nor was the slow escalation inevitable once the combat began.” With Lee’s invasion of the North, a battle was undoubtedly destined to occur, but it was road networks, topography, and the individual decisions of Union and Confederate commanders that transformed the small town of Gettysburg into a large universe of battle. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: On Its Anniversary, Remember the Lessons of World War I The Mirage of Permanent Solutions in International Relations Let’s Hope Trump’s ‘Spectacular Military Success’ Is Not Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

by James Howard Kunstler, All News Pipeline: “Betting against Donald Trump is usually a bad idea.” —Insurrection Barbie on “X” What apparently riles the credentialed political Left — the “gay / race communists” in the apt new phrase — more than anything, is that most of the country has opted to not be insane. This […]

by Strategic Infographics, Strategic Culture: When it comes to health, education, and wealth, some U.S. states outrank Europe’s strongest economies – while others lag behind. Using the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI), we matched each state to its closest European counterpart, revealing unexpected parallels. See where your state lands in this transatlantic comparison. TRUTH LIVES […]