Two centuries ago, gentlemen routinely carried swords or pistols to protect themselves, their families and their property. On the unlit dirt backroads of England or colonial America, armed highwaymen like Dick Turpin could demand “your money or your life!” without warning. There was no 911. No local law enforcement or highway patrol on the roads. In colonial America, frontiersmen had to protect themselves from hostile Native American tribes, the French and wild animals—sometimes using homemade weapons. In the wild West, there were local sheriffs, and deputies if the town was big enough, but anything exceptional required the sheriff to call up a posse of armed volunteers. This changed with the advent of the police. In 1829, British Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel founded the London Metropolitan Police, which is still headquartered in Scotland Yard. The constables he hired became known as “bobbies” or “peelers” and gradually adopted the blue uniforms with distinctive hats that we know today. American towns, states and cities began to hire their own police forces in the following years. The fundamental deal was that citizens gave the state a monopoly on violence and punishment, in exchange for the state keeping them safe. But is that deal still holding? In Charlotte, North Carolina, in August, Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death on a train by a fare-jumper who was out on bail after countless prior arrests. Her killer was walking free because a local judge didn’t think his obvious mental illness and violent past merited prison. And transit authorities, like many across America, didn’t enforce the requirement to buy a ticket. In Chicago in November, another young woman, Bethany MaGee, was set on fire on public transport by another recidivist. In December, an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported allegedly stabbed a man on the same light rail line where Zarutska was murdered. These are just three of so many tragic, preventable instances where the state failed its part of the bargain. It failed to keep dangerous, unstable people in jail or institutionalized. To enforce basic civility like having to buy a ticket to access buses and trains. To keep out dangerous foreign nationals who have no right to be here. But though murder and violent crime are the worst things from which the state has a duty to protect citizens, keeping their property safe is important too. In 2014, California passed Proposition 47, making the theft of under $950 no longer a felony but a misdemeanor. Since the police rarely bothered with such cases, thieves had a license to shoplift. And they did, with organized rings targeting specific stores and goods, and re-selling stolen merchandise in a billion-dollar industry. After a decade, even Californians had enough—they voted a new proposition in 2024 to return to saner law enforcement. Many large American cities from Chicago to New York have far-left, “progressive” prosecutors who routinely refuse to prosecute petty crime and shoplifting, with predictable results. In the U.S., stores can’t bring private prosecutions, so if the police won’t help, there is little they can do. In most big cities, police are struggling to keep up with 911 calls. Most chain stores tell their employees not to interfere with thieves. According to one union representative, that’s because the stores fear injury to employees, the thief and other shoppers—and the ensuing lawsuits—more than the cost of losing merchandise, which they can just pass on to customers. Britain has lately experienced an explosion of shoplifting, and a feckless response from police. The British Retail Consortium, a trade group, believes there were 20 million shoplifting cases in England and Wales in the first half of 2025. Official records showed only 529,994 thefts reported to police, but many shop owners don’t report shoplifting as they know the police won’t act. According to British Transport Police, thefts on the London Underground were up 33% this year. In 2024, there were 15,225 thefts across the system. The most the police will do in response is note the theft for the owner’s insurance claim. A natural response to the state’s abdication of duty has been to return to the past: If the state won’t protect you and your property, protect yourself. Even this carries risks. In New York in 2022, store owner Jose Alba was charged with murder after defending himself with a knife. In 2023, also in New York, Daniel Penny was charged with criminally negligent homicide after holding down a man who was threatening passengers on the subway. It’s a scandal when the state won’t protect taxpaying businesses and individuals, but it’s total injustice that it won’t let them protect themselves. And a recipe for chaos. ©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Originally published by ArcaMax. The post Has the West Given Up Protecting Its Citizens? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Obamacare Was, Is and Will Always Be a Problem

For decades, Americans heard the same justification for high drug prices. Pharmaceutical executives insisted those prices were unavoidable. Research costs required them. Innovation depended on them. The United States, as the world’s most open market, had to pay more than everyone else.Then Eli Lilly cut the monthly price of one of its flagship weight-loss drugs, Zepbound.If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change.Nothing about the drug changed. No new scientific breakthrough appeared. The only thing that changed was competition. Once real pressure entered the market, Lilly found room in its pricing model that executives had long claimed did not exist.The market responded quickly. Novo Nordisk, Lilly’s primary rival, lowered its prices soon after. This did not reflect a sudden gain in efficiency. It reflected fear of losing ground to a competitor.That is how functioning markets work. When one major player moves, others adjust. The correction happens faster than any federal agency could hope to manage.The irony is hard to miss. For years, the industry claimed margins were fixed and untouchable. Executives warned that any shift would damage shareholders and undermine global health. Yet the moment one company blinked, others followed. Consumers saw relief not because regulators intervened, but because competition exposed the old narrative as hollow.Another force reinforced that shift. On Nov. 6, the White House announced a pricing agreement with major drug manufacturers scheduled to take effect in 2026. The agreement aims to narrow the gap between U.S. prices and those in other advanced economies and establishes a purchasing framework that makes reductions easier to implement.That move marked a break from Washington’s habit of passively accepting industry talking points. The administration did not override the market. It amplified momentum competition had already created. Companies that once refused to consider cuts began to bend once the political cost of rigidity became clear. The announcement accelerated the trend, but competition started it.A larger reality deserves attention. Major pharmaceutical companies have posted enormous profits for years. They have spent billions on stock buybacks and shareholder payouts while executive compensation soared. Market valuations across the sector reached historic highs. Lilly even became the first pharmaceutical company to surpass a trillion-dollar valuation.Profit itself is not the problem. But competition forcing these firms to behave more like the quasi-utilities they resemble marks a welcome change from a system long treated as untouchable.RELATED: The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing byemo via iStock/Getty ImagesThat system rests on a global arrangement in which Americans shoulder a disproportionate share of drug development costs. Wealthy nations negotiate prices or impose caps. The United States does not. The gap between what Americans pay and what others pay funds buybacks, dividends, and executive packages. Shareholders collect the upside.The disparity speaks for itself. Drugs that cost hundreds of dollars overseas cost thousands here. The industry defended that gap by warning that research would collapse if prices fell. The current price cuts prove otherwise. Pipelines remain intact. Investment continues. Profitability holds. The model did not break when prices moved downward. It adjusted.These developments expose a simple truth. Prices never reflected necessity. Incentives shaped them, reinforced by limited competition and political deference. Competition cracked open an inflexible model. The White House helped widen the opening.Policymakers should learn from that sequence. If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change. The bloated regulatory machinery Washington favors often delays it. The market moved before Congress could even respond.For Americans struggling to afford essential medication, that lesson matters most. Competition remains the strongest and most reliable force for bringing prices down.It worked here. It can work again — if policymakers allow markets to function and pharmaceutical companies choose access over insulation.

Rolf Adlercreutz / Alamy Stock PhotoPhil Lynott was 36 years old at the time of his death. The death of Phil Lynott in January 1986 brought an end to his years-long struggle with addiction. On Christmas morning of 1985, the charismatic frontman of Thin Lizzy had suddenly collapsed in his home after taking heroin. Just over a week later, he succumbed to the ravages of a life lived at full throttle — one that was unfortunately marred by a lengthy battle with drug and alcohol abuse. At just 36 years old, the singer made famous by anthems like “The Boys Are Back in Town” had lost his lonely fight against heroin addiction. This is the story of how a lyrical genius — a Dublin icon who broke racial barriers in rock — was ultimately brought down by the very same demons that had fueled his art. It is a stark reminder that, for some, the loud life of a rockstar can end in a silent, desperate struggle. Growing Up Without A Father Phil Lynott was born on August 20, 1949, but his story really began two years earlier, when his parents met. His mother, Philomena Lynott, hailed from Dublin. His father, Cecil Parris, came from Georgetown in what was then British Guiana. He had reportedly stowed away on a ship that he believed was sailing to America in 1947, but he instead found himself in England looking for work. As his wife, Irene, would later tell the Daily Express, “He landed in Liverpool thinking it was New York.” Parris settled into a hostel in Liverpool, where he met Philomena Lynott. The two quickly caught feelings for each other and began a relationship. Shortly after, Lynott discovered that she was pregnant, and Parris asked her to marry him. There was one condition, though: He wanted permission from her parents. She rejected him. After Philip Parris Lynott was born in August 1949, Philomena Lynott moved with her son into a home in Birmingham for unwed mothers, sleeping in a communal dormitory and working for her bed and board. Steve Knight/Wikimedia CommonsJohn Sykes and Phil Lynott performing onstage in 1983. “Everywhere I turned, I was reminded of the extent to which an unmarried Irish girl with a Black baby was a social outcast,” Philomena Lynott wrote in, My Boy, which was published in 1995, a decade after Phil Lynott’s death. “It was that kind of awful, mean-spirited world back then, where anything unconventional was frowned upon and people were made to feel guilty, even about the most natural and innocent things.” By 1951, Philomena was living in Liverpool. While she still had occasional contact with Cecil Parris, her life was further complicated by the arrival of a second child, a daughter named Jeanette. Jeanette Parris Lynott, despite her name, was not Cecil Parris’ daughter. She was purportedly the child of a U.S. serviceman who was, by then, far across the sea. Meanwhile, Parris settled in London, leaving his son behind. There, he met Irene. “Cecil was always upset about [leaving] because he was a very strong family man,” Irene later explained. “It was taken out of his hands… He wasn’t able to be a father to Philip.” Philomena Lynott relocated once more, this time to Manchester, where she met a man she called Jimmy Angel. She became pregnant again and gave birth to a son named James Arthur Lynott. Jimmy Angel, who was also a U.S. serviceman, returned to America not long after. Philomena, barely past the age of 21 and a single mother of three, made a difficult decision. She placed Jeanette and James up for adoption, but she kept her oldest son. Phil Lynott carried the weight of this for the rest of his life. Phil Lynott’s Entry Into The Dublin Music Scene Phil Lynott eventually found himself in a more stable environment, living with his grandmother and two uncles in Dublin while his mother remained in Manchester. They were just making ends meet, but it was better for young Phil than constantly relocating and watching men come into his life only to leave shortly after. From a young age, Lynott felt a connection with music. His uncle Peter listened to bands like the Yardbirds and The Who as well as Black soul music, which resonated with Lynott. He soon began writing his own songs. Klaus Hiltscher/Wikimedia CommonsPhil Lynott in 1972. As he entered his teen years, however, his life seemed to be lacking direction. At 16, he became the lead singer of a band called the Black Eagles. He met a young drummer named Brian Downey at school and convinced him to join the group as well, but the band was ultimately short-lived. Lynott was then briefly part of a group called Skid Row, but he was effectively kicked out due to his inability to sing on-key. One of his former bandmates did teach him to play the bass, though, which changed the trajectory of his musical career. Lynott and his old friend Downey went on to form another short-lived band, Orphanage. Then, in 1969, they joined up with guitarist Eric Bell and keyboardist Eric Wrixon — and Thin Lizzy was born. The Rise And Fall Of Thin Lizzy In 1973, Thin Lizzy achieved their first top 10 single with “Whiskey in the Jar,” a rock version of a classic Irish song. But it was 1976’s “The Boys Are Back in Town” off the album Jailbreak that cemented them as international stars. Despite Thin Lizzy’s mainstream success, they were still struggling commercially. Lynott had evolved from a fairly shy bassist and singer to an attention-grabbing frontman, but his personal problems were beginning to impact the band. It started to become clear that Phil Lynott was deep in the throes of a drug addiction. Public DomainScott Gorham, Brian Robertson, Brian Downey, and Phil Lynott in 1977. Lynott had always embodied the creed of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.” He frequently slept with female fans and brought his lovers to shows. He had contracted hepatitis in the 1970s, which forced the band to cancel several shows while he recovered. He used both heroin and cocaine, stubbornly believing he would not become addicted. In 1978, Lynott’s girlfriend, Caroline Crowther, became pregnant. But even the birth of their daughter, Sarah, later that year didn’t inspire Lynott to seek out sobriety. When he and Crowther welcomed another daughter, Cathleen, and got married in 1980, some people were concerned that it wouldn’t last. Indeed, they separated within a few years, and Lynott’s access to his daughters was limited. He began to spiral. And a year later, he collapsed. The Death Of Phil Lynott Thin Lizzy had officially come to an end in 1983. Lynott’s marriage fell apart shortly after. And in 1986, the death of Phil Lynott brought an end to the musician’s struggles. Harry Potts/Wikimedia CommonsThin Lizzy in 1983, shortly before the band split up. He had hoped to reunite Thin Lizzy. Perhaps, he thought, they could stage a comeback at Live Aid in July 1985. U2 took their spot on the bill instead. Lynott’s other project, Grand Slam, was troubled from the beginning by the same issues that had plagued Thin Lizzy. Even Lynott’s solo gigs fell flat. Not knowing what else to do, Phil Lynott locked himself away. During an appearance on Good Morning Britain in 1984, he had stated, “The frightening thing about heroin is that… it’s very enjoyable to take it. It cuts off reality.” So, as he was dealing with the harsh reality of losing his band, his wife, and his children, Lynott turned to the drug once more. On Christmas Day 1985, Lynott took a sizable dose of heroin before unwrapping gifts with his daughters at his London home. He collapsed and needed to be rushed to the hospital — but few people suspected it would be the end. They were sadly mistaken. Cityswift/Wikimedia CommonsA statue of Phil Lynott in Dublin. “I don’t know about anyone else who was there, but I really had no idea how physically broken he was by the drugs,” his mother later recalled, “and I was searching for light — any kind of light — at the end of what only part of me would concede was a tunnel of nightmarish darkness.” At the hospital, Lynott was diagnosed with septicemia — blood poisoning — which led to a 10-day battle for his life. Tragically, Lynott succumbed to death on Jan. 4, 1986, from heart failure, pneumonia, and kidney and liver damage that was aggravated by his drug use. A family man at heart, Lynott had grappled with not knowing his father throughout his life. It had left a scar on him that never healed. But when he became a father himself, his lifestyle sadly ensured the same fate for his own children. After reading about the death of Phil Lynott, go inside the mysterious disappearance of Connie Converse, the original singer-songwriter. Then, learn about the tragic sudden death of Scott Weiland. The post The Life And Death Of Phil Lynott, The Thin Lizzy Singer Who Died While Battling A Heroin Addiction appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Watch: A Tale of Two Protests, San Francisco and Florida

Buying headphones can be an investment, and cheap models can struggle with clarity, detail, and balance. Here's why your music may sound flat and distorted.

Keep your desk tidy without breaking the bank with Dollar Tree's sleek wooden crate, which stores cables neatly and costs an affordable $1.25.

President Donald Trump on Sunday warned Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez that she could pay a "bigger" price than Nicolas Maduro if she chooses not to acquiesce to the U.S. demands concerning the South American country.

[View Article at Source]They're in trouble. The post SBA’s Loeffler Says Minnesota Fraud Is Tip Of The Iceberg appeared first on Conservative Brief.

[View Article at Source]Another victory for America. The post FBI Foils New Year’s Eve Terror Plot Planned For North Carolina appeared first on Conservative Brief.