News Pluribus Vince Gilligan Explains Why His New Sci-Fi Show Pluribus Stars a Frustrated Romantasy Author In Pluribus, Vince Gilligan’s observations on the modern world include a Romantasy author who has had enough. By Matthew Byrd | Published on October 28, 2025 Photo: Apple TV Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Apple TV We still don’t know a lot about Vince Gilligan’s upcoming sci-fi show Pluribus, which is exactly the way the Breaking Bad creator likes it. Gilligan is cashing in his blank check on a big, weird genre series, and he’s made it clear that you’re better off knowing as little as possible going into this show about its protagonist Carol: a woman who is mysteriously immune to a virus that makes nearly everyone else in the world eternally happy. However, in a recent interview with AV Club, Gilligan did drop one fascinating new tidbit about Pluribus: Carol is actually a frustrated romantasy author. When asked why he decided to give Carol such a specific profession, Gilligan offered a surprisingly self-reflective answer. “I just liked the idea of a writer trying to save the world a lot,” Gilligan explains. “I was thinking about different professions, like what if she were a florist or something instead? When you think of someone who saves the world, you’d want a Liam Neeson or a Tom Cruise. You don’t want a writer. That’s about the last person in the world you want tasked with saving humanity because we’re all a bunch of inept idiots.” Gilligan doesn’t need to go out there and start spilling our secrets, but that’s a more than fair observation. Still, writers have been unlikely protagonists for quite some time. Just look at the foundation of Stephen King’s empire. Why did Gilligan choose a romantasy author specifically? “I started thinking about what kind of writer Carol should be,” Gilligan says. “I can say from 30-plus years of experience that screenwriters are boring. And romance authors just seem more colorful, fun, and interesting.” Again, fair, though for what it’s worth, Gilligan suggests elsewhere that Carol is a frustrated and somewhat self-loathing romantasy writer. It’s a detail that not only supports Gilligan’s other thoughts on writer protagonists, but his professed love for protagonists that are frustrated outsiders. “Sometimes I walk into a restaurant, and I get this feeling that everybody knows each other, and I’m the only one who’s a stranger,” Gilligan muses. “So I like a hero who is not fully equipped for the task. Carol Sturka wants to save the world, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be done by her. She doesn’t need the credit. She just assumes someone else will take the reins of this thing… those are the kind of stories I like, where the audience can say, ‘You know, I don’t know if she’s even doing the right thing. I know her heart’s in the right place, but is she even doing the right thing?’” We’ll see if Carol does the right thing when Pluribus starts streaming on Apple TV on November 7. [end-mark] The post Vince Gilligan Explains Why His New Sci-Fi Show <i>Pluribus</i> Stars a Frustrated Romantasy Author appeared first on Reactor.

By now, most know that free speech is under threat in Great Britain. In August, Vice President J.D. Vance “raised some criticism [and] concerns about our friends on this side of the Atlantic” while in England on vacation and for official meetings. I just went back to my old college, St. Andrews in Scotland. I’d reached out to them several times since retiring from being a diplomat, and while their official responses have been polite, it’s clear they don’t want to engage too closely with an alumnus who is an outspoken conservative. But I was invited to speak by the school’s Foreign Affairs Society, a group of international relations students who don’t shy away from real conversations about Brexit, NATO, and immigration. I was told there were a few angry posts on Instagram prior to my visit. The comments were focused on my employer, The Heritage Foundation, rather than anything I had written or said. I was half hoping for a raucous demonstration at the venue, the university’s central St. Salvator’s quad, if only as publicity for my book “The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey).” In preparation for my arrival, the Foreign Affairs Society had organized both official campus and student volunteer security. As it turned out, the protest was just two young female students holding a tiny placard that I couldn’t make out. The rest of the protesters had sensibly gone to the pub, I suspect, in firm St. Andrews tradition. The audience was polite, and their questions informed and engaging. A few days later, I spoke to graduate students under the tutelage of Professor Eric Kaufmann at the University of Buckingham. Kaufman had just published a report on the sudden decline of young people identifying as “transgender or non-binary,” with a graph that quickly went viral thanks to retweets by Elon Musk and others. I’d become aware of Kaufman way back in 2020, when he was one of the few voices in Britain challenging orthodoxy about mass migration and assimilation. My last London engagement was at the Battle of Ideas Festival, on their 20th anniversary. The event was buzzing, with hundreds of people and multiple simultaneous panels and presentations. My event was “Free Speech Under Trump,” featuring fellow panelists from Cambridge, New York, and Liverpool universities, as well Tom Slater, editor of the online outlet Spiked. The environment was wonderful. There were tables hosted by dozens of organizations, from the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) to the Free Speech Union. Attendance leaned conservative, but everyone was welcome. The Battle of Ideas was the opposite of cancel culture—so naturally, commenters from the left hated it. One called it “a cynical brand showcase” and “a live content farm for Britain’s right-wing media ecosystem” because it featured conservative voices like GB News, the Spectator, and UnHerd. The New Statesman scathingly described attendees as either “of a certain age” or weird. On our panel, the NYU and Liverpool professors cast Trump as a threat to democracy and free speech. In the UK, as in the U.S., college faculty are overwhelmingly left-wing, so no surprise there. Dr. James Orr from Cambridge and I argued the opposite—that Trump had arrived in the nick of time to save free speech and oppose cancel culture, which had hitherto only targeted conservatives. The audience was divided in reaction and viewpoint, but at no point did anyone shout, hold up “Free Palestine” cards, or ask impertinent or obnoxious questions. The Battle of Ideas was an encouraging atmosphere of open discussion, leading me to wonder: Would such a conversation be possible in the U.S. today? I think not. First, it would have to be organized by conservatives, who are not afraid of debate and whose ideas can stand exposure to daylight and counter arguments. American Leftists seem afraid to discuss their core values with opponents. Instead, many allege mere words are violence. Rather than bringing opposing voices on campus and tackling them with better arguments, American students try to de-platform them—demonstrating a puerile fear of rhetoric. Then there’s the matter of security. The Battle had no metal detectors, and the only visible staff were young volunteers in white t-shirts. Any such event in the U.S. today would have to be locked down tight. In addition to hounding conservatives off campus before they can speak at all, our extremists on the far left have demonstrated a propensity for violence in opposition to free speech. Charlie Kirk braved the arena, and it cost him his life. At least he died with his rhetorical boots on. Britain’s free speech today is arguably most under threat from gender ideology and Islamism. The former will fade, as Kaufmann’s research shows. The latter is a growing menace that Britain, and the West as a whole, must face. In England, “Pro-Palestine” demonstrations are routine and protesters openly call for violence against Jews and Israel. Politicians in Birmingham, the nation’s second-largest city, recently banned fans of an Israeli soccer team due to the threat of violence from the local population. The fates of David Ames, Salman Rushdie, Mike Freer and others remind us what is possible. Yet giving into a sectarian heckler’s veto to appease radical sensibilities will signal Britain’s ultimate concession to a subset of immigrants’ intolerance over the national majority’s respect for free speech. The post Free Speech in Britain—a Visitor’s Snapshot appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump announced that Toyota will invest billions to open auto plants across the country. “I was just told by the [Japanese] prime minister that Toyota is going to be putting auto plants all over the United States to the tune of $10 billion,” Trump said. “Go out and buy a Toyota.” Trump spoke to sailors aboard the USS George Washington Tuesday in Tokyo Bay after meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Trump said he thinks Takaichi, Japan‘s first female prime minister, will “go down as one of the great prime ministers.” “I want to just let you know, anytime you have any question, any doubt, anything you want, any favors you need, anything I can do to help Japan, we will be there,” Trump told Takaichi. Takaichi will nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. The post ‘Go Out and Buy Toyota’: Trump Announces Japan’s Major Investment in US Industry appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As we observe National First Responders Day, let us honor those who protect us every day—and give extra support to those with the courage to reestablish law and order while confronting defiance, violent discord, and even domestic terrorism. A coordinated, dark money-funded far-left movement is targeting and attacking one law enforcement agency in particular: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In doing so, they’re jeopardizing the lives of ICE officers. Federal prosecutors have charged violent rioters for attacking law enforcement in urban areas across the nation. Since June, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has filed cases against 33 extremists who allegedly assaulted ICE agents and other officers at Portland’s federal immigration facility. In Chicago, five defendants were recently indicted for assaulting or resisting federal agents, including one suspect who violently dragged an ICE officer with a vehicle, sending the agent to the hospital. Authorities in Los Angeles arrested over 575 rioters after demonstrations sent the city into fiery chaos and injured at least 10 officers over the summer. A Texas court indicted the first two of 18 defendants in custody for suspected connection to a shooting at an ICE facility on terrorism charges. Amid the social and economic decay of cities like Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles, leftist politicians created sanctuaries for aliens violating our laws. Instead of following their oath to protect their citizens, these politicians have instead protected criminals and terrorists. Now, liberal politicians not only openly defy the federal government, but they also encourage anarchy against constitutional ICE operations and even incite attacks against federal law enforcement agents. Financial records and public endorsements show that despite leftists’ claims, anti-ICE riots are heavily coordinated campaigns of anarchy and not organic acts of protest. For example, the International Anti-Fascist Defense provided bail to a group connected to the ICE facility attack in Texas on July 4th. The Trump administration stated that many of these violent attacks against ICE are connected to groups identifying themselves as Antifa, coordinated online and backed by a dark money network that funnels funds through nonprofit tax-exempt status under the guise of “community defense” or “mutual aid.” Antifa is well affiliated with national activist coalitions, Marxist organizations, and legal defense funds that also appear connected to the anti-Trump administration “No Kings” protest movement. That’s the same network that supports liberal politicians across the country. Two organizations listed as No Kings partners, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and League of Conservation Voters, endorsed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson won with the support of Our Revolution and Indivisible Chicago, two groups that also participated in the No Kings mobilizations. One of the most striking examples of politicians placating anarchy is in Portland. The city approved a near $500,000 settlement to Dustin Brandon Ferreira, a reported Antifa associate, and another several hundred thousand dollar settlement to Meghan Lea Opbroek, who was left injured in an Antifa arson attempt against a local police precinct. Through these settlements, Portland has effectively made taxpayers sponsor left-wing terrorism to avoid trials. These associations are just some of many that reveal how anti-federal law enforcement agendas are embedded within the political mainstream of America’s largest sanctuary cities. The rhetoric attacking law enforcement is alarming, but the risk increases as you follow the money that sponsors this behavior. A study of political extremism in America concluded that 2025 is on track to be the most violent year of leftwing extremism in over thirty years. The pandemic years coaxed leftist positions and flagged normal behavior as dangerous. Since March 2020, liberals’ go-to political weapon has been doxxing, causing personally identifiable information to be widespread against people whose only “offense” was exercising their rights or carrying out constitutional orders. Many of the Left’s doxxing victims are federal agents—and the sharing of their personal information obstructs their ability to do their jobs. Authorities arrested John Curcio who purportedly leaked a female ICE attorney’s home address to social media and encouraged people to harass her. A grand jury indicted three women in September for following an ICE agent to his door and live streaming his address to the public. When states and municipalities declare sanctuary policies or refuse to cooperate with ICE, they’re complicit in anarchy and endangerment of law enforcement officers. On this day, we honor all first responders who now face growing threats of political violence. While liberals berate brave officers for enforcing laws most Americans support, let us continue to give our visible and vocal support to those defending Americans every day. The post Dark Money, Sanctuary Cities, Left-Wing Terror, and the War on ICE appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What a Stupid Question

'What the F*** Did You Just Do?': Obama Ripped Pelosi Over Kamala Endorsement

"Now we are living through a moment of legislated genocide."

Scientists have developed the first-ever ultrasound probe that can capture whole organs in 4D.

Late night comedy’s all-out effort to drag Zohran Mamdani across the finish line in New York City’s upcoming mayoral election continued on Monday on Comedy Central with its most direct bit of campaigning. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart welcomed Mamdani to tell him how much “I love hearing” about his campaign and to claim that he has been surprised establishment Democrats have not fallen in line behind him. Stewart insisted that he is not “blowing smoke,” but he clearly was, “And what I love hearing about this is, one of the things that has been so frustrating in our politics is so much of it has been defined over these last ten years as the negative case against someone, and finally—and I think this is not blowing smoke -- I think you've made an affirmative case for people. I think the enthusiasm that they have for you is because you have made an affirmative case that's not about protecting something that is going to be lost or a bad man that’s over there.”     As for Mamdani’s intra-party critics, Stewart added, “It is about an idea that you have, and it surprised me that the Democratic establishment did not embrace that energy. And is that something that has bothered you? Is getting better? I mean, Hakeem Jeffries, with a brave, brave endorsement, I thought, 24 hours ago—what has that been like for you?” Mamdani’s “affirmative case” is basically being the middle schooler who runs for student government promising no homework and free ice cream all day, every day. There’s also the Hamas propagandizing that, somehow, Stewart never managed to bring up in a 30-minute interview. As for Mamdani’s response, he took the free opportunity to pat himself on the back, “You know, I think it is interesting in many ways, because our politics and the media that covers it is often focused on the question of endorsements. And it is part of what gave Cuomo the sense of inevitability in the primary. He just seemed to pick up all of these different endorsements. And I think what we showed in many ways was that the days of endorsements deciding elections, those days have come to the end. It is the people who built up a campaign. And, you know, I appreciate having Congressman Jeffries, his endorsement, and I appreciate more than that when we have spoken, it's been about, how do we deliver for our shared constituents?” Turning to Trump, he continued, “Because it’s, you know—these are the same New Yorkers, whether we are representing them in city hall or Albany or D.C., and like you said, we have been telling them time and again that all we have to offer is not Trump. But this is also the city that created Trump. We have to reckon with that. And when you think about—” Stewart then interrupted, “Did you hear, there was an audible gasp? ‘This is the city that created Trump’ and everyone was like, ‘Oh, my god, that's right!’ Are we Dr. Frankenstein? Nooooo! Nooooo!’" Yes, but instead of Trump, New York and the late night comedy shows should be more worried about giving the rest of us Mamdani. Here is a transcript for the October 27 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 10/27/2025 11:30 PM ET JON SETWART: And what I love hearing about this is, one of the things that has been so frustrating in our politics is so much of it has been defined over these last ten years as the negative case against someone, and finally — and I think this is not blowing smoke — I think you've made an affirmative case for people. I think the enthusiasm that they have for you is because you have made an affirmative case that's not about protecting something that is going to be lost or a bad man that’s over there. It is about an idea that you have, and it surprised me that the Democratic establishment did not embrace that energy. And is that something that has bothered you? Is getting better? I mean, Hakeem Jeffries, with a brave, brave endorsement, I thought, 24 hours ago — what has that been like for you? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: You know, I think it is interesting in many ways, because our politics and the media that covers it is often focused on the question of endorsements.  STEWART: Right. MAMDANI: And it is part of what gave Cuomo the sense of inevitability in the primary. He just seemed to pick up all of these different endorsements. And I think what we showed in many ways was that the days of endorsements deciding elections, those days have come to the end. It is the people who built up a campaign. And, you know, I appreciate having Congressman Jeffries, his endorsement, and I appreciate more than that when we have spoken, it's been about, how do we deliver for our shared constituents?  STEWART: Right. MAMDANI: Because it’s, you know—these are the same New Yorkers, whether we are representing them in city hall or Albany or D.C., and like you said, we have been telling them time and again that all we have to offer is not Trump. But this is also the city that created Trump.  STEWART: Right. MAMDANI: We have to reckon with that. And when you think about— STEWART: Did you hear, there was an audible gasp? "This is the city that created Trump" and everyone was like, "Oh, my god, that's right!” Are we Dr. Frankenstein? No! No!"

In 1934, Congress gave famed Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt the authority to adjust tariff rates without its approval so that presidents could deal with times just like those President Donald Trump faces today, Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin explained Sunday. “Look, you don’t have to love tariffs. You might not even like tariffs,” but they’ve been used by Democrat and Republicans alike since the country’s founding, Host Levin noted Sunday in the latest episode of “Life, Liberty and Levin,” presenting a list of all the presidents who have wielded tariffs: “Tariffs were used by presidents of every party in every period of American history to try and give a breather to allow our industries to develop, because other countries, in many respects, were taking advantage of our country, as Donald Trump talks about all the time.” “The president, under Article 2 [of the U.S. Constitution], is in charge of foreign policy – that includes trade,” Levin said, going on to cite specific authority Congress granted Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR): “In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which gave President Franklin Roosevelt the ability to change tariff rates by fifty percent and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without additional approval from Congress.” “Why? Well, you look at Congress right now,” Levin explained: “The Democrats closed the government. The Republicans have very small majorities. The Framers understood this. This is why, in national security and foreign policy issues, the president is commander-in-chief – with some input from Congress, no question. “But, quick decisions, emergency decisions, fundamental decisions, you have an executive branch. Congress still have the power to pass legislation, has the power of the budget to withhold monies for certain acts by the executive branch – but, sometimes, decisions have to be made.” “So, to me, there was no non-delegation issue, this 1934 act, or to the Supreme Court,” Levin concluded. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) gave FDR the unilateral authority to adjust tariff rates, as well as to negotiate bilateral trade agreements. Between 1934 and 1939, Roosevelt used his RTAA authority to obtain trade agreements with 19 countries, helping the U.S. recover economically from the Great Depression. “Through the RTAA, Congress set the framework for international trade negotiations and empowered the President to exert American leadership in the international trading system,” the United States Trade Representative explains: “The RTAA served as an integral step in America’s transition from economic crisis to global leadership.  FDR believed that a complete and permanent recovery depended on strengthened international trade to increase domestic growth and demand.”