Culture ‘Natural’ Is Back, No Matter the Cost Is the Crawford household—let alone America—ready for the MAGA look? Credit: a katz/Shutterstock I don’t know how I am going to break this to my wife, but I’m not sure we can afford for her to look “natural.” A “celebrity cosmetic dermatologist” in Beverly Hills tells Vogue that we “are moving towards a period where natural, timeless beauty is increasingly valued.” A Beverly Hills plastic surgeon says this look is “characterized by elevated brow, prominent cheekbones and taut skin.” They’re calling it “Mar-a-Lago face,” and I can only imagine how much it would cost to achieve this look. “Trump’s America is driving shifts in aesthetic ideals and appearances,” Vogue tells us. The country has lurched to the right, and the sartorial evidence for this shift has been on display at least since the inauguration. There was a “uniform look” among the fashionistas surrounding the incoming president, standing tall with their “bouncy blowouts, overdone makeup and ultra-traditional skirt suits.” They were “severe and demure…bold and brash [yet] unmistakably Republican.” This is not the aesthetic of Barbara Bush’s GOP, of course, but something altogether new and exciting: Little House on the Prairie, perhaps, if relocated to Trump Tower.   This move, at least in terms of immediate clothing choices, is of greater importance to women than to men, I’d guess, but the political sociology of it concerns us all. Something called Utah curls are in (not sure what those are) and tattoos are out. “With shifting ideals and morals come shifting appearances,” Vogue reports, and one mark of this conservatism is “a return to ultra-gendered values; be it hyper-femininity or hyper-masculinity.”  We’re seeing “a rejection of non-binary aesthetics,” and increasing “gender stratification.” On fashion-show runways, “size inclusivity rates” have continued to drop, meaning fatties need not apply. “It’s a sign of what’s to come: a continued shrinking and toning of bodies in the name of control. The resurgence of diet culture, the popularity of Ozempic and the decline in alcoholic consumption aren’t just about health or aesthetics.” These trends, someone at a “strategic foresight agency” tells Vogue, “reflect a deeper societal push towards restraint, discipline and control over one’s body.”  None of this is a surprise to Neil Howe, the author (with the late William Strauss) of Generations: A History of America’s Future, among other books, and, most recently, The Fourth Turning Is Here. I’ve known Neil since, back in the Pleistocene, he was an editor at what became The American Spectator, and I was a contributor. Whenever I need advice on, say, which ascot to wear the next time I head to Hooters, I call Neil. So I rang him up the other night to ask what he makes of this news from the world of Anna Wintour and Michael Kors—that Neverland, that is, where people wear sunglasses indoors.  Vogue is correct that the women around Trump, “appointees as well as family and extended family, take the way they present themselves very seriously,” Howe tells me. “Aesthetics are clearly important to this administration and its constituency. These women don’t look like they spend a lot of time barefoot in the kitchen, like some idealized ‘trad wife.’ But they do embody a kind of subservience to the patriarch. And the way men look is important, too. Trump seems to pick his cabinet based on how they look on TV. He wants men with that Hegseth jaw.” This is not to suggest that what is signaled here is without substance. “Loyalty is important to these people,” Howe says. “Except for that one niece, who seems to have made a career out of trashing Trump, he maintains a good relationship with all these children. He’s not loyal to his cabinet—there’s no one from his first term around for his second—but he is loyal to his family. The whole Melania/Ivanka style is one of respectful subservience. He’s in charge, and they are his helpmates.” And it’s not just the inner circle. “You see this kind of gender bifurcation in younger people these days, with the ‘manosphere,’ Andrew Tate and all that,” Howe goes on. “Younger Americans think about money all the time, but not in an optimistic, upwardly mobile way. They are worried about their financial future. They’re in a kind of defensive posture, and this administration, stylistically, speaks to all that.” Hey, I get it. I’ve never gone a day in my life without worrying about money, even when I had it. There’s no way we can afford to send my wife to a plastic surgeon in Palm Beach, so she is going to have to achieve that “natural” look on her own. We’ll have to work on that “subservience” business, too, of course, and that is not a conversation I look forward to. What I can do, in the meantime, is wear sunglasses indoors. I might need to do so after we discuss her “subservience.”  The post ‘Natural’ Is Back, No Matter the Cost appeared first on The American Conservative.

Culture The TAC Kentucky Derby Preview The American Conservative’s racing correspondent has the inside track. Nineteen horses will Run for the Roses on Saturday in Lexington, Kentucky at the 151st Kentucky Derby. Though three horses are strong favorites heading into this weekend’s premier thoroughbred race, all 19 appear live in a field that features a mix of speed horses and strong closers. Let’s dive in. Legendary trainer Bob Baffert is back in Lexington hoping to make history as the only trainer to win the Kentucky Derby seven times. Baffert is fresh off a three-year suspension at Churchill Downs after his star 3-year-old colt, Medina Spirit, who won the 147th Kentucky Derby in 2021, was later disqualified when he tested positive for the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid betamethasone. (Medina Spirit died in December of the same year in unclear circumstances.) Baffert, who is an enigma in a sport of enigmas, has brought Citizen Bull and Rodriguez to the Derby. Rodriguez, who was seen as the stronger of Baffert’s two horses, was scratched late on Thursday following the discovery of a “small but sensitive foot bruise” ahead of Saturday’s race. His owners will now look to feature the top colt in May’s Preakness Stakes at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, Maryland. Owner Mike Repole’s Grande, an underdog in this year’s race, was also scratched Friday morning due to a foot bruise. On Twitter, Repole admitted disappointment with the decision by track veterinarians after multiple clean x-rays of a slightly cracked heel on the horse throughout the week.  The two scratches means the John A. Shirreffs-trained Baeza, who ran head-to-head with Derby favorite Journalism at the Santa Anita Derby in April, will enter the field at the far outside gate. Son of Puca and McKenzie, Baeza will be ridden by French jockey Flavien Prat and is expected to be in the mix coming down the home stretch on Saturday. Shirreffs is known for training the historic filly Zenyatta who ran 19-1 in a sterling career that at one point saw the female horse defeat the best colts of her day at the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic.  Baffert’s Citizen Bull drew gate 1 and will look to use his big speed to gain the lead along the rail right out of the gate. Victory will be a tall task for Bull, who likely needs to lead the race from gate to the finish. No horse has won the Derby from gate 1 since Ferdinand pulled an upset in the 1986 edition of the race.  Fabled trainer D. Wayne Lukas brings Virginia Derby winner American Promise to this year’s Kentucky Derby. The 89-year-old horse-whisperer from Wisconsin has won the Kentucky Derby four times. Sired by Triple Crown winner Justify, American Promise is a chestnut colt and the largest horse in the field. In March, he smashed the track record at Colonial Downs and defeated second-place finisher Render Judgement, who is also in the Derby field, by seven lengths. Though he may suffer from a long layoff between the Virginia Derby and this weekend’s race, his starting position in gate 4 should give him ample opportunity to find a path into the top three.  The horse to beat in this year’s Derby is the Michael McCarthy–trained Journalism who looks every bit the part of a top-tier horse. The son of Curlin, one of America’s all-time greatest horses, Journalism is known for his closing speed and has won four out of his five starts. The bay colt triumphed in April’s prestigious Santa Anita Derby, a sign of strength heading into Kentucky. Ten winners of the Santa Anita have gone on to win the Kentucky Derby, and, with a prime starting position in gate 7 on Saturday, it will be Journalism’s race to lose.  Two horses from Japan will feature in this year’s race. Luxor Cafe and Admire Daytona represent stables from the Land of the Rising Sun as both look to become the first Japanese horse to ever reign supreme in America’s premier thoroughbred fare. Luxor Cafe, who dominated the field at Fukuryo Stakes in March, is the son of Triple Crown winner American Pharoah who edged out the Derby field in a thrilling finish to the 141st running of the competition in 2015. Admire Daytona won the UAE Derby in April but is the lesser favored of the two Nippon horses.  Publisher, another son of American Pharoah, is the only horse in this year’s race to have never won a race heading into the Derby. A horse that’s never won a race is referred to as a “maiden” and the last one to win the Kentucky Derby was nearly a century ago when Broker’s Tip outstretched Head Play in a finish that was marred by controversy after Head Play’s jockey accused the winner of rough riding down the stretch. Publisher will have a tall task ahead of him on Saturday but his impressive performance running a strong second to Sandman in the Arkansas Derby means he will have a chance to win in a wide-open field.  The two big favorites besides Journalism heading into Saturday are Sandman and Sovereignty. Sandman is a favorite with the betting public, who are excited to back the grey colt known for his closing speed. The hype surrounding Sandman went to another level after it took top place in a thrilling, come-from-behind, finish at the Arkansas Derby. Sovereignty is a late runner who won the Fountain of Youth Stakes in March against a field that featured two other Derby horses. The colt, who led the Derby Dozen rankings all year, is hitting his stride at the right time and should be heavily considered to run away with the top prize. The late pop star Toby Keith, who passed away from stomach cancer in February, has a horse in this year’s Derby. The longshot Render Judgement, who ran second in the Virginia Derby, will start from gate 13. There has been some controversy regarding the horse’s status heading into the weekend after it was discovered the horse has a quarter crack in its hoof but track veterinarians ruled the colt in Friday morning.  Coal Battle will start out of gate 14 and the underdog is a fan favorite for those who follow horse racing throughout the year. At 72 years of age, Louisiana-native trainer Lonnie Briley had never won a grade-stakes race before Coal Battle rattled off four consecutive victories between November and February, capped off by a big performance in the Rebel Stakes. “It’s shocking,” Bailey said this week. “I’m at the end of my time and then I’ve come across with a horse like this.”  Some other horses to keep your eyes on heading into Saturday afternoon include Burnham Square, Final Gambit, and East Avenue. A recent win at the 9 furlongs at Keeneland has Burnham Square peeking at the right time. The late closer Final Gambit, trained by Brad Cox, is a blend of pedigree and power and rode the outside lane with power to victory in the Jeff Ruby Steaks this March. East Avenue is one of the fastest horses in the race but could run into trouble as rain is expected to create muddy conditions on the track Saturday.  The Kentucky Derby is one of America’s greatest shows. On the eve of summer, it sits comfortably at the crossroads of competition and culture, in the American heartland from where the nation’s wide dreams often emanate. If nothing else, it’ll be a great party for all on Saturday. Hats out, mint juleps full, sit back and enjoy the show. The post The TAC Kentucky Derby Preview appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Reagan Was Criticized for Diplomacy, Too The 40th president faced the same arguments, almost beat for beat, that Trump is hearing now for his efforts in Ukraine. There are specific things one can take issue with when it comes to Donald Trump’s efforts to bring an end to the war in Ukraine and lower tensions with Russia—his public browbeating of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, for instance, or his decision to preemptively lift sanctions on Russia without extracting any concessions in return. But for months, the consensus among the liberal press and the Atlanticist establishment has been that the entire project on its own is inherently suspect, an act of treachery, surrender, and, of course, 1938-style appeasement.  “Forcing Ukraine to cede land will only increase Putin’s imperial appetite,” warned the Atlantic Council shortly after Trump’s win. Labelling the peace plan he recently put forward “one-sided” by pressuring Ukraine to concede territory, the New York Times charged that the president “plays into Putin’s hands,” echoing the German defense minister’s words that any territorial concessions are “akin to a capitulation” and widespread accusations from European officials and others of appeasement. Zelensky himself has somewhat conspiratorially claimed that “Russia has managed to influence some people on the White House team through information,” a claim echoed in mainstream reporting.  But arguably the line was set by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) in her response to the State of the Union address in March, in which she accused Trump of “cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin” and said that “as a Cold War kid, I’m thankful it was [former president Ronald] Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s. Trump would have lost us the Cold War.”  Yet ironically, Reagan was attacked in almost the exact same terms that Slotkin and others use for Trump, and for doing almost the exact same thing: trying to negotiate with the Soviet Union and to improve relations between the two nuclear superpowers while the Soviets were in the middle of a similarly brutal invasion of Afghanistan. But, for Reagan, that criticism came almost entirely from Cold War hawks on the hard right.  “The Reagan administration is so eager for ‘improved’ relations (‘improvement’ means less friction, which means more US passivity as the Soviet Union behaves as it always does) that when the president spoke to the United Nations last year, his reference to Afghanistan was so brief and limp that William Buckley said the president ‘made it seem as though the poor Afghans were suffering from chicken pox,’” complained the conservative columnist George Will in early 1985,  as then-Secretary of State George Shultz embarked on arms-control talks with his Soviet counterpart. In the column, Will outlined in lurid detail a list of Soviet war crimes that, he implied, made talks unacceptable, and called the idea that the Soviet state desired agreements that would allow for peaceful coexistence a “radically false premise,” insisting that “the Soviet regime regards jawing as a facet of warring.” Hawkish pressure on Reagan didn’t just come from newspaper columns. A group of conservative Republicans that included Jesse Helms sent Reagan three separate letters urging him to take a hardline stance on Soviet violations of previous arms deals and refuse to engage in talks until those were rectified. At the time, Reagan’s efforts were being widely applauded by Congressional leaders of both parties.  As U.S.–Soviet rapprochement advanced, this kind of rhetoric intensified, as when Reagan and the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev held a historic summit in Iceland in October 1986. “The record of all the summit conferences gives one no encouragement to think that they produce any lasting improvement in US-Soviet relations,” griped the National Review editor and former Richard Nixon speechwriter Jeffrey Hart, who cast the entire exercise as a Machiavellian chess move by Gorbachev. “We are no friendlier today than we were in 1945.” “There will be much dissecting of how well, or how badly, the cause of peace was served by the summit in Iceland,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor columnist and former Reagan official John C. Hughes, who, like Hart and many peace-averse voices 40 years later today, brought up “appeasement” and Winston Churchill. The former British prime minister “would surely have counseled vigilance in dealing with the Soviets, and the only ghost he would have feared would have been that of Neville Chamberlain’s tragic appeasement policy,” he wrote. But this was nothing compared to the firestorm that erupted on the right when Reagan and Gorbachev finally signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in December 1987. In response, the conservative activists Richard Viguerie and Howard Phillips formed the “Anti-Appeasement Alliance,” warned that Reagan had “resurrected the disastrous policy of detente,” and was marching “headlong into another Munich.”  Phillips was particularly incensed. When Reagan publicly said that his right-wing critics seemed to have deep down “accepted that war is inevitable,” and privately told reporters he didn’t think the Soviet Union under Gorbachev was seeking world domination, Phillips called him a “useful idiot for Soviet propaganda”—while charging that ratification of the INF treaty would mean “a major battle of World War III will have been lost by default,” proving Reagan’s point.  After cautioning during the Iceland summit that an INF treaty might “leave the remaining balance tipped further in favor of the Soviets” and show they “could manipulate the politics of the Western democracies,” the Wall Street Journal questioned, upon the agreement’s signing, Gorbachev’s sincerity and warned that the USSR had “achieved an important political objective at almost no cost to their own offensive capability” of persuading the world of their good will. The conservative weekly Human Events fretted that Reagan would “give away the store.” Less famous voices got in on the act too. One unsigned editorial at the Danville Register and Bee brought up—what else?—Chamberlain and Munich, warning that Hitler invaded Poland 11 months after “peace in our time” was declared and concluding, “Treaties mean nothing to totalitarian leaders.”  Of course, with hindsight, we can say with uncertainty that all of this nay-saying was wrong. Gorbachev’s friendship with Reagan wasn’t a cynical ruse, but genuine and pivotal to the end of the Cold War; the late Soviet leader wasn’t using talks and arms control as an alternative form of war, but became widely admired in the West as a peacemaker and elder statesman; the INF treaty wasn’t a cunning trap, but came to be viewed as a cornerstone in arms control; and none of this opened the door to further war and Soviet expansionism, as the constant Munich references held, but rather led to thawing U.S.–Soviet relations and, ultimately, to a peace that was globally celebrated.  Democrats during Reagan’s years did criticize the president over talks—but in stark contrast to today, they attacked him for not engaging in diplomacy with the Soviet Union, which Reagan didn’t do in any meaningful way for his entire first term. When Reagan did announce a meeting with the Soviet foreign minister in September 1984, Democratic opponent Walter Mondale’s objection wasn’t that he was doing it, but that he had waited until five weeks before his re-election to do it, and that he wasn’t meeting with his Soviet counterpart directly, saying, “If they would come out with a significant arms control agreement, I’d be very thrilled.” Other top Democrats made similar points at the time.  What’s remarkable is not just that critics of U.S.–Russian rapprochement have not changed their arguments an iota, still making references to Churchill, Chamberlain and Munich that were already years out of date nearly 40 years ago when what was called the “Right of Reagan crowd” made these attacks. It’s that the voices that have wholesale lifted these talking points from the hard right of the 1980s are now overwhelmingly on the Democratic and liberal side of the ledger. In a rational political climate, it should be a cause for some serious self-reflection among those cheering against peace.  The post Reagan Was Criticized for Diplomacy, Too appeared first on The American Conservative.

Prime Minister SHORTEN - Remember Him? No? 2019 Polls Said He Was CERTAIN to Win! UTL COMMENT:- Bit late to load this today but shall do anyway.... interview Ok... Almost everyone in the Australian media has decided that Peter Dutton has lost this election and all is done and dusted based on recent Newspolls. But is it? Damian is joined by three minor party Senate candidates from the right side of politics, Jordan Ditloff, Rob McMullan, and Senator Gerard Rennick, to discuss.

?BREAKING NEWS: Labor Unveils New Democracy™: You Vote, They Decide What You Really Meant CANBERRA – In an inspiring leap forward for progressive authoritarianism, the Albanese government has courageously declared that when Australians voted NO to the Voice, what they actually meant was “Yes, but please legislate it without our consent.” “Democracy is complicated,” explained a spokesperson from the Department of Reinterpretation and Gaslighting. “Sometimes the people get it wrong. That’s why we’re here… to correct their ignorance with compassion and Marxism.” Meanwhile, The Minister for Scissoring, Penny Wong… fresh from her eighth Welcome to Country of the morning… reassured the public that 68% of Australians voting to scrap those ceremonies simply proves how much more essential they are. “They’re not divisive,” she said, “they’re just a small reminder that you should constantly feel guilty for being born.” When asked if this push might be viewed as ignoring the will of the people, Albo confidently responded, “Not at all. The Australian people trust us. Just like they trusted us on housing, energy bills, and COVID internment camps.” Critics who once campaigned for marriage equality have now dared to question whether they unknowingly opened the floodgates to state-funded pronouns, puberty blockers, and drag shows for toddlers. Fortunately, Reddit moderators and public servants are working around the clock to report them to the Human Rights Commission. “Wokeness is love,” explained one Greens senator while removing the Australian flag from Parliament and replacing it with a rainbow-Indigenous-climate hybrid. “And love means overriding your vote, your values, and your voice.” Experts from the Institute for Misapplied Neuroscience say Marxism only failed 43 times last century because of “neurotypical privilege” and “insufficient TikTok validation.” The Albanese government is now considering a follow-up referendum asking Australians to confirm they trust Labor with everything, forever, no take-backs. As of press time, their new slogan was leaked: “Australia said no. Labor said screw you.” And that, my friends, is called progress. @FairAusADV @AlboMP @SenatorWong @AustralianLabor @AdamBandt @Greens @PeterDutton_MP @HonTonyAbbott

In April, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that sought to prohibit people from using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits — commonly known as food stamps — to purchase soda. AllSides highlights content from Gigafact, a network of newsrooms that respond to online claims. View the full fact brief on Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting.