YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #trump #humor #inflation #debt #babylonbee #eternalmortgage #mortgage #housingmarket #housingcrisis #interestrate #banking
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
6 w

Elvis Costello’s pick for the best James Bond theme “by 100 miles”
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

Elvis Costello’s pick for the best James Bond theme “by 100 miles”

An unexpected choice... The post Elvis Costello’s pick for the best James Bond theme “by 100 miles” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Some ‘Bad News’ for Zach Bryan

I’ll say this, and some of the readers of this column already know it: I’ve been a fan of country singer Zach Bryan’s. I think there’s some merit to his music, and some of his lyrics speak to the 21st-century American condition in ways that a lot of corporate-driven pop music isn’t capable of doing. He’s a little on the dour side for a widespread commercial breakout, but still, there is some value in Bryan’s music. That doesn’t really matter much anymore for a sizable chunk of his fans, though. Because Zach Bryan put this out a few days ago, which has set his fan base aflame against him… All hell broke loose among country fans over the lyrics to “Bad News,” and especially the reference to cops as “cocky m-f’ers” and ICE is “gonna come bust down your door, try to build a house no one builds no more, but I got a telephone, Kids are all scared and all alone.” And not surprisingly so. Very few people listening to country are interested in a rich recording artist who wants to whine about law enforcement officers doing their job right now. (RELATED: Abusing Border Patrol Agents: Echoes of Vietnam) Not when we’re in the middle of a situation in which all of our cities are disgusting cesspools of criminality and behavioral pathology, which make police officers into frontline troops in a war to preserve civilization. (RELATED: Want to Suppress Crime? Start With Rochester, NY) Not when there are people who share Zach Bryan’s politics taking potshots at ICE officers with sniper rifles or trying to ram them with vehicles. (RELATED: The Four Rings of Terror — How Violence Targets Conservative America) And especially not when the vast majority of the people ICE is busting down the door of are MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gangsters, sex traffickers, and other criminals. (RELATED: Meet the Criminals Anti-ICE Protesters Are Fighting to Shield) As an aside, because I saw some grumbling in the comments under my last column after I referred to illegal criminals, and some of you groused that they’re criminals simply for showing up here illegally. Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m using economy of language to note that not only are the vast majority of current ICE arrestees illegal for having denied the American people our due process rights in selecting which immigrants we want and which we don’t, but they’re also criminals on top of that. Either they had criminal records before they came here, or they’ve engaged in criminality while here, or both. So Zach Bryan isn’t just going on some unwatchable late-night variety show like Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert and making a shitty comment about ICE; he actually produced a song that all but leads with ICE as some sort of Gestapo that scares all the kids. A lot goes into producing a song, you know. This took malice aforethought. And so reactions like these are neither unreasonable nor out of the blue… Zach Bryan looks like he’s had enough soy for one lifetime. — Geoffrey Chaucer (@GeoffreyCh49032) October 8, 2025 #FOff TOAD. We are DONE with your ??‼️ Country Singer ⁦@zachbryan⁩ Backtracks After Backlash, Now Says Message in Anti-ICE Song Being ‘Misconstrued’https://t.co/aM8aydeREO — Maytag99 (@pixee99) October 8, 2025 And there was this recital of one of Bryan’s lesser moments… ‘@CMT Zach Bryan shows he not only hates cops but a conceited asshole. Says “I’m a famous musician” and won’t give cop address. In song calls cops “cocky motherfuckers.” @zachbryan handcuffed after speeding in Oklahom… https://t.co/Yhu6qJJhIp via @YouTube — Larry Prescott (@JinnRunner) October 8, 2025 And this one… He did this, too. ? And is also apparently a serial cheater. pic.twitter.com/FI0LdHbnI1 — Jessie’s Girl (@Photini1967) October 7, 2025 John Rich wasn’t amused… Singer John Rich Calls Out Zach Bryan Over His Song Bashing ICE https://t.co/5T0kstsdzz — Dallys1515 ? (@Dallys1515) October 8, 2025 Benny Johnson caught up to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and asked her about it, and she torched Bryan about as thoroughly as she could… BREAKING: Secretary Kristi Noem flames country singer Zach Bryan. I just asked Noem about the new Zach Bryan song attacking ICE. Noem went scorched-earth calling the woke singer “completely disrespectful” to the law enforcement that protect him. Secretary Noem: “I hope Zach… pic.twitter.com/MPXuVshPnM — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 7, 2025 DHS then trolled Bryan with a video clip of ICE and other DHS officers arresting illegals and Antifa rioters, set to a snippet of one of Bryan’s more notable songs… We’re having an All Night Revival pic.twitter.com/o7q8DExPra — Homeland Security (@DHSgov) October 7, 2025 This led Bryan to issue a “sorry if you’re offended”-style statement on Instagram, leaning, among other things, on the fact that he spent some time in the Navy… In a statement posted on an Instagram Story, Bryan wrote that “Bad News” was written months ago and that people need the “full context” of the song. “This shows you how divisive a narrative can be when shoved down our throats through social media,” Bryan said. “This song is about how much I love this country and everyone in it more than anything. When you hear the rest of the song, you will understand the full context that hits on both sides of the aisle. Everyone using this now as a weapon is only proving how devastatingly divided we all are. We need to find our way back.” He continued, “I served this country, I love this country and the song itself is about all of us coming out of this divided space. I wasn’t speaking as a politician or some greater-than-thou a–hole, just a 29-year-old man who is just as confused as everyone else. To see how much s— it stirred up makes me not only embarrassed but kind of scared. Left wing or right wing we’re all one bird and American. To be clear I’m on neither of these radical sides. To all those disappointed in me on either side of whatever you believe in just know I’m trying my best too and we all say things that are misconstrued sometimes.” Yeah, well… Nothing I’ve heard of this song dumps on illegals or Antifa or AOC like the first two verses that trash the cops and ICE. Maybe that’s the “unreleased” part of “Bad News.” If Zach Bryan thinks he’s getting unfair treatment, then maybe his real beef is with his producers and record label, who stirred up this controversy in thinking that turning him into the Bud Light or Cracker Barrel of country music was a good idea. And if that’s so, he ought to say so. It’s pretty apparent that isn’t so, and whatever criticisms of Zach Bryan’s lefty friends are in the song will turn out to be a lot more muted than scathing. The insult here is that somehow we’re to believe Zach Bryan is de novo. Like the Right hasn’t had to put up with being insulted and trashed by poorly-behaved theater kids like Zach Bryan for decades, and we’re all paranoids and whiners for rejecting him over a song. No. And screw you. He’s a pretty good country singer. He isn’t good enough to dictate our social attitudes to us. If Garth Brooks wasn’t good enough, Zach Bryan sure as hell isn’t. (RELATED: Jimmy Carter’s Favorite Song ‘Imagine’ Sung at His Funeral) Bryan also took to social media to whine about how he’s been under a microscope of late… “The last few months of my life I’ve been scrutinized by more people than I ever thought possible. I feel like I’ve tried my hardest in so many ways and it’s so had to see where my bearings even are anymore. Been falling off a cliff while trying to grow wings at the same time,” Bryan wrote. “I am SO proud to have served in a country where we can all speak freely and converse amongst each other without getting doxxed or accosted on the internet or worse; the violence and heartbreak we’ve faced in the last few months! God speed ol sons I’m out!” Here’s the thing: Zach Bryan isn’t a politician, and he’s not a pundit. He’s not exactly the most informed or qualified to do either one. Instead, he’s an entertainer. So go entertain. What he’s finding out is something Michael Jordan was smart enough to know without having to be beaten about the head and shoulders first, which is, as Jordan once said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” Zach Bryan’s fan base was more MAGA than not, and he’s dumped all over them. Yes, he deserves the Dixie Chicks treatment he’s going to get for this. And no, those lyrics aren’t “misconstrued,” they’re stupid and poorly written if they’re intended to persuade anybody of anything. If Zach Bryan wants to be relevant as a social commentator, he’s going to have to accept accountability. Which is to say that when his take sucks, and when he’s wrong, he’s going to have to accept the backlash and own it. Not whine about it while you hide behind pablum your publicist posts on Instagram. So that’s enough of Zach Bryan. Bye, Zach. Enjoy oblivion. READ MORE from Scott McKay: It’s Good v. Evil. It’s Always Been Good v. Evil. The Sombrero Shutdown Needs Some Time to Deliver Its Benefits Emotional Terrorism Doesn’t Work Anymore, and That’s a Real Problem for the Left
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Self-Driving Cars Becoming Unstoppable

SACRAMENTO — After San Bruno police couldn’t figure out how to ticket a driverless taxicab that made an illegal U-turn, the Legislature passed a measure that would hold these companies responsible for the rare traffic violation. That is not only unobjectionable but signals good news. Last year, the Legislature had tried — but failed — to pass a law that would have essentially allowed localities to regulate these vehicles. That would have put the kibosh on their expansion in major metro areas if individual localities could limit or forbid them on local streets. This year, California lawmakers simply tweaked the motor-vehicle code in a practical way to deal with an emerging industry. It’s a sign that autonomous vehicles are gaining acceptance, while state officials are mainly trying to deal with any practical concerns. Unions are still pushing other states to require drivers, especially for heavy-duty trucks. But Luddites never succeed over the long haul, although they can delay the adoption of useful and life-saving technologies. (RELATED: Stop Slamming the Brakes on Driverless Cars) Self-driving vehicles are unquestionably lifesavers. These vehicles are programmed to follow the rules of the road. They occasionally malfunction, but typically in minor ways. The most serious accidents are typically the fault of human drivers. In one of the worst accidents, a self-driving taxi stopped appropriately at a red light. The car behind it also stopped. But then, as the Understanding AI Substack explained, “a human-driven SUV rear-ended the other vehicles at high speed.” If the first vehicle weren’t a Waymo self-driving cab, we’d probably never even have heard about it. Human drivers are the problem. Peer-reviewed research from the Swiss Reinsurance Co. found the following: “Results demonstrate that the ADS [Automated Driving Systems] significantly outperformed both the overall driving population (88 percent reduction in property damage claims, 92 percent in bodily injury claims), and outperformed the more stringent latest-generation … benchmark (86 percent reduction in property damage claims and 90 percent in bodily injury claims). This substantial safety improvement over our previous 3.8-million-mile study not only validates ADS safety at scale but also provides a new approach for ongoing ADS evaluation.” That Understanding AI Substack looked closely at reported crashes — and federal law requires the companies to report any “significant” crashes (injuries or air-bag deployments) — and also found that Waymos had a far-lower accident rate than human-driven cars. Even better, it found that the company’s low accident rate continues to noticeably improve. Apparently, robots are better learners than humans, too. Apparently, robots are better learners than humans, too. U.S. motor-vehicle fatalities per miles traveled have fallen somewhat lately, but had been increasing in the previous few years. Car-caused pedestrian fatalities also dropped recently, but remain at nearly 50 percent higher than a decade ago — and self-driving cars offer a great chance to reduce those numbers, given that they are most common in cities with a large number of pedestrians. Some MAGA voices echo the union line. “I think we ought to ban autonomous vehicles,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, told Business Insider. He claimed they aren’t safe and “would be terrible, terrible for working people.” His former point is debunked by the research, and his latter point seems like a bid to protect union jobs. Never mind that the nation is facing severe shortages of truckers and that AVs could greatly help consumers. (RELATED: The Car That Pulls Itself Over) Fortunately, the Trump administration is taking a sensible line on the issue. The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued new guidelines for AV development. “As part of DOT’s innovation agenda, our new framework will slash red tape and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. It’s encouraging that the department is calling for enabling commercial deployment. And U.S. Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., has offered a good bill that would modernize regulations to accommodate commercial AVs. As I noted in my Orange County Register column, robots are “not chatting on cellphones, fussing with the radio or distracted by crying children. They are more attuned to surrounding traffic — and can ‘see’ much farther ahead than the average driver. But fear of the unknown often drives policy.” I took a Waymo for a ride in Phoenix, and despite the initial weirdness of riding in a car without a driver, the ride was uneventful and pleasant. And I didn’t need to make awkward conversation with a human driver. Policy makers need to ignore sensationalist headlines about AVs getting in minor fender benders and resist the protectionist calls from union drivers, and let this market develop without undue hindrance. The opportunity to vastly reduce traffic fatalities is astounding. There’s nothing wrong with, say, adjusting traffic laws to deal with real problems, such as minor traffic citations, but they need to err on the side of innovation and freedom. READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Another Transit Shakedown of Taxpayers Los Angeles Faces an Olympian Task Test for Newsom as Dems Target Charters Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Robert Reich and the Cult of Cowardice

Robert Reich has become the poster child for everything that makes the modern Democratic Party unbearable — moral panic dressed as principle, weakness masquerading as wisdom. He speaks like a man convinced that cowering is a form of courage. Every post, every column, every clipped video carries the same tone: a sermon of despair delivered from behind a screen. His recent newsletter, America’s Trauma, reads like the diary of a nervous breakdown with a Wi-Fi connection. Reich likens Trump’s presidency to collective abuse, calls his followers “lapdogs,” and paints the entire country as a therapy session gone wrong. To read him is to feel smothered — not by Trump, but by Reich’s own hand-wringing. There is no conviction, only complaint. No leadership, only lament. He mistakes emotional exhaustion for moral depth, as if sighing loudly enough might change the course of the country. Some dismiss him as just a writer, a retired bureaucrat playing pundit. But that’s precisely the problem — he’s not. Reich’s voice carries weight. He has 1.4 million followers hanging on his every anxious word. He’s taught generations of students at Berkeley, he’s a regular on MSNBC, a contributor to The Guardian, and he shapes the moral tone of the Democratic Party’s intellectual class. He’s not fringe but part of the furniture. When Reich speaks, others echo. His words filter through podcasts, think tanks, and campaign talking points. He embodies the mood music of a movement that confuses vulnerability with virtue, self-pity with substance. His handwringing is contagious. And the contagion has spread. This is the problem with so many men in the modern Democratic Party: they sound like patients, not patriots. They apologize before they speak. They talk endlessly about trauma, anxiety, and “healing the nation,” yet never once speak of duty, courage, or sacrifice. The party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has become a chorus of counselors. (RELATED: The Rise of the Male Bimbo) There’s a kind of narcissism in it — a belief that to feel deeply is the same as to act bravely. Reich, once Labor secretary under Bill Clinton, was supposed to be a man of ideas — a policy mind with genuine backbone. But over the years, the spine snapped. Now, instead of offering solutions, he offers symptoms. Every crisis is cast as emotional injury; every disagreement, a wound. He doesn’t teach resilience but instead normalizes fragility. There’s a kind of narcissism in it — a belief that to feel deeply is the same as to act bravely. (RELATED: This Man Is Not the Answer to the Masculinity Crisis) And he’s not alone. Look at the Democrats’ supposed “model men.” Pete Buttigieg talks like a management seminar, smooth but soulless. Tim Walz had — and still has — the air of a defeated school principal pleading for silence in a rowdy classroom. Even Van Jones, one of the steadier voices on the left, slips into therapy talk when the moment calls for strength. These are not leaders built for the ugliness of politics. They are mediators in a world that demands fighters. They are spokesmen for a party that brings hand sanitizer to a knife fight and then wonders why it keeps bleeding. (RELATED: Real Leadership in the Unsung Men of the Armed Forces) Reich’s essays feed that very softness. He tells his followers that feeling helpless is rational, that despair is a form of awareness. He gives permission to wallow, not to withstand. That’s the quiet poison of his politics — it keeps Democrats in a permanent state of psychological submission. While the right rallies with defiance, the left retreats into safe spaces. Reich chooses medication over mobilization. His worldview is one where America is forever on the couch, never on its feet. And that is why men — real men — tune out. Not because they lack compassion, but because they crave conviction. They want to see strength that doesn’t submit, soften, or self-flagellate, leadership that stands firm. Reich embodies the opposite: the domesticated man, afraid of offense, fluent in outrage but uneducated in resolve. If the Democrats want to win back men, they’ll have to shed the Reich mentality. They’ll have to rediscover the language of clarity and conviction. They’ll have to learn how to speak not like shrinks, but like statesmen, because men do not rally around worry. They rally around will. (RELATED: Travis Kelce Is the Blueprint Democrats Have Been Missing) The politics of perpetual comfort, where emotion replaces action and empathy excuses inaction, is poison. That’s because empathy without energy becomes sentimentality, and sentimentality, once turned into politics, leads only to paralysis. Reich’s words might soothe the faithful, but they repel the restless — the builders, the doers, the men who still believe guts, not grief, is what holds a country together. In the end, Robert Reich is not dangerous. He’s worse — dull, predictable, and terminally timid. And that is why the Democrats, unless they find the courage to change, will keep shrinking into irrelevance — a party of worriers in a world that demands warriors. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The End of Taylor Swift’s Feminist Fantasy Christianity at the Crossroads Defying the West, Slovakia Recognizes Biological Sex
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Will Hamas Blow Up Gaza Deal With Explosive Demands?

As a new condition of the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, Hamas is reportedly demanding that Israel release arch-terrorists Abdullah Barghouti, Marwan Barghouti, Ibrahim Hamed, Ahmad Sa’adat, Hasan Salameh, and Abbas al-Sayed. According to a Hamas source, Hamas is insistent on the release of these arch-terrorists, even at the expense of derailing the current deal. So, who are these serial murderers that Israel will now be pressured to release? Abdullah Barghouti is a Hamas operative who is serving 67 life sentences for orchestrating attacks that killed 66 Israelis and wounded over 500 more during the Second Intifada. The attacks he helped orchestrate include: the Sbarro Restaurant attack (Jerusalem, 2001), the Café Moment attack (Jerusalem, 2002), the Sheffield Club attack (Rishon LeZion, 2002), the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria bombing at Hebrew University (Jerusalem, 2002), and the Allenby Street bus bombing (Tel Aviv, 2002). (RELATED: So Let’s Say Israel Agrees to Full Withdrawal and All Hamas’s Demands) Marwan Barghouti was the head of Tanzim and founded the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, both of which are Fatah-aligned organizations that have committed terrorist attacks against Israel. Barghouti has been imprisoned since 2002 for orchestrating terror attacks that killed five people: a Greek monk near Ma’aleh Adumim, Judea, in 2001, an Israeli civilian near Giv’at Ze’ev, Judea, in 2002, and three Israeli civilians in the Seafood Market Attack in Tel Aviv in 2002. Hamas has attempted to negotiate for his release numerous times, including during the 2011 negotiations to free Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. In 2014, Barghouti called for the Palestinian Authority to stop cooperating with Israel, and called on Palestinians to instigate an “overall and armed resistance” against Israel. Ibrahim Hamed was Hamas’s military commander in Judea, who had been a member of Hamas since the late 1980s. Hamed was sentenced by Israel in 2012 to 54 life terms for his involvement in terror attacks that killed 46 Israelis during the Second Intifada, in addition to 8 attempted homicides. He helped orchestrate several of the higher profile attacks during the Second Intifada, including: the Zion Square Attack (Jerusalem, 2001); the Café Moment Attack (Jerusalem, 2002); the Sheffield Club Attack (Rishon LeZion, 2002); the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria Bombing at Hebrew University (Jerusalem, 2002); and the Cafe Hillel Attack (Jerusalem, 2003). Ahmad Sa’adat is the current (and imprisoned) secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization. In 2006, Israel captured him from a Palestinian prison, and in 2008, Israel sentenced him to 30 years in prison for heading a terrorist organization and for his involvement in the murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi in 2001. Hasan Salameh is a Hamas operative serving 48 life terms for orchestrating many suicide bombings. Abbas al-Sayed was convicted in an Israeli court in 2006 for the HaSharon Mall bombing (Netanya, 2001), which killed 35 Israeli civilians and wounded hundreds more, and the Passover Massacre/Park Hotel bombing (Netanya, 2002) that killed 30 Israeli civilians and wounded 140 more. Hamas has made additional demands of Israel at the 11th hour, each of which will likely be a poison pill to the Jewish State… But these archterrorists are not the only thing that Hamas is using to hold up Trump’s deal. Hamas has made additional demands of Israel at the 11th hour, each of which will likely be a poison pill to the Jewish State, and likely torpedo the deal: First, in addition to the release of the above terrorists, Hamas is also demanding the release of the Hamas terrorists from its Nukhba Unit, elite commandos that Israel captured from the October 7 attacks, as well as the bodies of Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Sinwar. Second, Hamas officials have told Al Jazeera that it wants “guarantees” that Israel will end the war in Gaza and have a “complete withdrawal of the occupation army” from Gaza. This stands in contrast to Israel communicating to the Trump administration that it will maintain a security presence in some strategic points in Gaza following the war, which include “a buffer zone inside Gaza’s borders, the depth and size were not specified; the Philadelphi Corridor along the border with Egypt; and the Tel al-Mantar hill, also known as Tel al-70, east of Gaza City’s Shujaiya neighbourhood.” Third, Hamas is now stating that it intends to stage the release of the hostages and tie those releases to Israeli withdrawals, which contrasts with Trump’s plan for Hamas to release all the hostages within 72 hours. Fourth, Hamas is also not agreeing to disarm, which is also a condition in Trump’s plan. Israel may face increased pressure to release arch-terrorists, but the Jewish State must remain insistent that these people remain in prison and that their continued imprisonment be non-negotiable. As the release of terrorists in the Gilad Shalit deal has taught Israel, terrorists that are released go on to commit murder once again (as the case of Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 attack, demonstrates). Additionally, Israel should not agree to Hamas’s additional demands, as they will merely allow Hamas to regroup and continue its genocidal forever war against the Jewish State. Only with the assured complete, timely, and unconditional release of all the hostages should Israel even contemplate a ceasefire with genocidal Hamas. READ MORE from Steve Postal: Japan Set to Elect Female Nationalist, Pro-Taiwan, Anti-China Hawk as Next PM In Gaza Peace Offer, Trump Should Reject Palestinian Statehood Build, Bibi, Build
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Can Artificial Intelligence Reduce the Left-Wing Bias in University Classrooms?

As Artificial Intelligence reshapes the academic landscape, faculty find themselves increasingly divided, torn between embracing its potential and resisting its perceived threats to pedagogy, ethics, and academic integrity. While some of us recognize the risks posed by artificial intelligence — including concerns about the left-wing bias in the source data itself — we choose to engage with its potential cautiously. Others have embraced an increasingly alarmist narrative, portraying AI as an imminent and overwhelming threat — and denigrating those of us who take a more measured view. (RELATED: Artificial Intelligence Requires Human Understanding) Recently, a colleague published an essay describing those of us who have attempted to implement aspects of Artificial Intelligence in our classrooms as being “unscrupulous and unserious” members of academia. Claiming that a teacher who uses AI-generated or assisted lesson plans is a “front-man for the Machine,” his essay suggests that “the teacher who relies on fake lesson plans will soon lose the ability to create real ones.” Declaring his rejection of the “cheap, disintegrated, and practically infinite information available on the Internet,” this AI-opponent vows to return to physical media. “If I really need to know (for instance) when Walter Raleigh was born,” he writes, “I can reach for a book.” (RELATED: AI Is Not the Monster — It Is a Mirror) To be fair, this dedicated faculty member’s aversion to artificial intelligence is entirely understandable — even if his rhetoric and remedies veer toward the extreme. His concerns are echoed by educators nationwide, some of whom not only reject AI but now profess a broader retreat from reliance on internet searches altogether. A 2025 “Meta-Summary of Recent Surveys of Students and Faculty” on AI in higher education, which summarized the findings of surveys conducted in 2024 and 2025, offers insights into the future of AI in academia. Unsurprisingly, the findings revealed that while students have enthusiastically embraced AI and are using AI tools in their studies, faculty resistance remains strong and usage lags far behind. (RELATED: The AI Employment Apocalypse Is Only a Few Years Away) Part of the problem is that many faculty members believe that they have not had enough input into university decisions on AI. Part of the problem is that many faculty members believe that they have not had enough input into university decisions on AI. A new survey from the American Association of University Professors shows that a breakdown of shared governance around implementing AI has implications for the future of teaching, learning, and job security. More than 90 percent of the 500 AAUP members who responded to the survey last December indicated that their institutions are integrating AI into teaching and research, 71 percent said administrators overwhelmingly lead conversations about introducing AI into research, teaching, policy, and professional development, but gather little meaningful input from faculty, staff, or students: “Respondents viewed AI as having the potential to harm or to worsen many aspects of their work while ed-tech is at least ‘somewhat helpful.’ Eighty-one percent of respondents noted that they use some type of ed-tech, and 45 percent said they see it as at least somewhat helpful.” Some large state institutions require a broad implementation of the new technology. The Ohio State University recently announced a new initiative to enable all students — no matter what their major — to graduate with proficiency in Artificial Intelligence: “Ohio State’s AI Fluency Initiative will embed AI education into the core of every aspect of the undergraduate curriculum, equipping students with the ability to not only use AI tools, but to understand, question and innovate with them.” By integrating AI education across the curriculum, Ohio State maintains that it is preparing students to be “creators and innovators, ensuring that they are well positioned to contribute to and lead the AI-driven economy.” Despite Ohio State’s optimism, the AAUP study revealed that Artificial Intelligence is leading to faculty skepticism about the motives and consequences of embracing the new technology. One of the authors of the study told a reporter for Inside Higher Ed that “we on the committee have seen that AI in higher education is barely even functional and tech companies view higher education as a cash cow to exploit. Seventy-six percent of the respondents said it has created worse outcomes in the teaching environment; 40 percent said it is eroding academic freedom, and 30 percent said it is weakening pay equity.” Tying faculty bonuses and merit raises to the adoption of Artificial Intelligence has resulted in a two-tier faculty system and may be forcing some of the more recalcitrant faculty members out of the classroom. Despite these concerns, those of us who are beginning to embrace artificial intelligence as a tool to enhance student learning recognize that our traditional role as educators needs to evolve. In an attempt to integrate AI into one of my own upper-division courses, each student was tasked with producing a 45-minute class presentation by creating a minimum of 30 AI-assisted PowerPoint slides. They were also asked to verify all presented data that they received from AI using existing U.S. Census Bureau data and other trusted data sources. The results were encouraging as the student presentations were visually striking, intellectually comprehensive, and deeply engaging. Most importantly, the data were accurate. As improvements have been made in data sourcing, AI data are increasingly dependable, and the original concerns about a left-wing bias in AI data sources and presentation have been greatly reduced. Perhaps it is time for faculty to acknowledge that much of the resistance to embracing artificial intelligence in education is not solely rooted in concerns about student learning. Student participation and enthusiasm have exceeded expectations for this course. It is rare for classroom presentations to elicit such sustained attention and interaction from student peers. Yet this semester, each student brought their data to life through AI-assisted PowerPoint slides that featured beautifully rendered bar graphs, dynamic layouts, and visually stimulating designs. Embedding short film clips into their presentations brought an additional layer of vibrancy. The integration of AI tools allowed students to experiment with aesthetic choices and presentation formats they might not have attempted. The result for each student was a slide presentation that was not only intellectually rigorous and informative but artistically compelling. Perhaps it is time for faculty to acknowledge that much of the resistance to embracing artificial intelligence in education is not solely rooted in concerns about student learning. At its core, it often signals an unwillingness to reconsider the conventional role of the educator, coupled with a perceived erosion of an ability to use the classroom as a space for ideological influence — providing a platform for shaping belief. For decades, our authority has depended upon our role as “gatekeepers” of knowledge and facilitators of intellectual growth. The rise of AI challenges that model — offering students instant access to information, adaptive feedback, and even assistance in crafting arguments or solving problems. The influence of faculty bias in classrooms can be significantly reduced as Artificial Intelligence fosters a more democratized learning environment, leaving less space for the left-wing politicization that has permeated university classrooms for decades. This shift forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: How do we preserve the human dimension of education — curiosity, mentorship, ethical debates — when technology begins to “take over” the domain that we once considered ours? Faculty members need to be the ones answering that question. If the faculty response is simply to try and bolt the door against encroaching technology, they give up the opportunity to reimagine their role in ways that can be both meaningful for their students and rewarding for them. READ MORE from Anne Hendershott: Not in the Neighborhood: Ms. Rachel’s Radical Departure From Mr. Rogers’ Moral Compass Furries Are Having a Dangerous Cultural Moment Speech, Spite, and the Oxford Union’s Shame
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

The Way We Were

Other than R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., no other regular contributor has written for our magazine as far back as John Coyne. His first piece for us was a nice cover piece on Jack Kerouac and the Beat generation in the May-June 1970 edition, which we repost below. He wrote for us consistently for a long time, until a few years ago. With John’s death, our longest-serving living writers are Ben Stein and RET, Jr. — Ed. When Bob Tyrrell rather casually asked me to do a short piece on the differences between the Beats of the fifties and the New Leftists of the sixties, I rather casually said I would. And now that it’s time to produce, I wish I were in Mongolia, up the creek without a typewriter. For what I’m expected to do, I fear, is to sum up a couple of the most complex decades in American history, a task for which I may be even less suited — believe it or not — than someone like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. For one thing, I haven’t really sorted things out for myself yet. The fifties were special for me; the memories still have more to do with emotion and nostalgia than with reason and analysis. And I think that most of us who came of age in the fifties feel much the same way. Occasionally, some of us get together again, a little beefier now, the bellies beginning to push out, the hairlines retreating, the worry lines a little deeper. We stand at some obscure bar where no one remembers us, a bar where once we held court, and we gulp down draft beer and dago red and forget about those martinis most of us have — much against our better sense — graduated to, and we dust off our memories and dredge up forgotten names and adventures. “Remember the night Jack punched John, the bartender, just as he was coming over the bar to throw us out? John went flying into Kathleen’s lap and knocked her into the steam table. Good old Jack.” “Remember that night we got stranded outside Santa Rosa and finally hitched a ride with two escaped cons who’d stolen a Studebaker?” “Remember that night in Denver we sat up all night chewing that peyote Dick had brought back from Mexico? And the peyote turned out to be soft wood chips?” And we begin to stand a little straighter, one foot hooked up on the rail and we forget the wives and the kids and the cushy jobs we’re all just a little bit ashamed of. Some boob at the bar asks Bill Moylan what he’s up to now, and Bill, who spent four years in the fifties writing an immense novel about war and Christ and courage and patriotism and death, flushes and finally blurts out that he sells toys. But Mike comes to the rescue and tells the boob to bug off and we seal it up and forget it. And after we’ve drunk a few more gallons the years drop off and it’s 1950 again and we see the faces as they were, lean and tough and cynical and mean and absolutely compassionate. And we dream again of cross-country trips, sometimes hitching, sometimes on Greyhounds, trips begun at about three in the morning when we’d had too much of New York and New Yorkers. And those magnificent places we fled to — Tucson, Santa Fe, Denver, Rapid City, Waco — are ours again for just a while. Like most important things, we didn’t know we had it until we lost it. Like most important things, we didn’t know we had it until we lost it. It all began, I guess, in the late forties, when the first great wave of veterans hit the campuses, and universities became almost overnight the new centers of American society, a great chain of autonomous city-states stretching from coast to coast. And suddenly, the former inhabitants of the universities — the 4 Fers, the evaders, the young deferred instructors who had whiled away the war by ogling coeds and preaching received Marxian doctrine — all were washed away as the veterans remade the campuses in their own images. Years older than their classmates chronologically, and centuries older experientially, they were tenderly cynical, hard drinkers and womanizers, and they had learned in Europe, in the Pacific, in obscure Southern and Southwestern military bases pretty much all there was to know about the basics of manhood. They were men, real men, who’d tried everything at least once, and many of them had been through hell and come out the back door. And just when they began to thin out, the Korean veterans returned and the whole thing began again. It was this suddenly imposed society, a man’s society, that nurtured the first crop of Beat writers. The Beats, for the most part, were an integral part of the new society, and in one way or another, they’d learned most of the same basic lessons. Unlike the New Leftists, they were absolutely unpolitical. As long as the machine ran, they were willing to leave it alone, and they had seen enough (unlike the new radicals, who had seen little more than college campuses and the irrelevant life lived there) to realize that as bad as the system might be, it was still the best system yet devised. They were willing to leave politics to the politicians, for whom they felt no great love but whose antics amused them mightily (and this explains a great deal about how most of us felt about Joe McCarthy. We never loved him, but we all got a great kick out of the way he used to scare the liberals). I was never a Beat. By the time I came back from Korea, the movement had already pretty much fizzled. But many of them were still around and they were more like us than any of our non-veteran classmates. We knew the same things, we drank the same things, we hated the same things, and we shared, despite our contempt for the pin-headed bureaucrats who too often ran things, a deep and profound love for America. Our experiences had taught us to eschew frills, to look for what was basic. Thus, we believed strongly in those emotions, such as patriotism, which we had seen bring out the best in our comrades, and although cynical (albeit our cynicism now seems pretty superficial), we believed that the important things could be reduced to a very few essentials — kindness, honesty, bravery. Courage was the big thing for us, and if we had any single idol (outside of Kerouac, of course) it was Hemingway. Probably naive, but it seemed to us that Hemingway was one of the very few big American guns who understood anything at all of what manhood meant. Our girls, most of whom we picked off from young instructors, seemed to agree, and until 1960, there was always at least one girl acting out the Lady Brett bit. We weren’t Beats, but we could talk to them and they could talk to us in a way we’ve never been able to communicate with the radicals. Our ideals can never be theirs, for our personalities, our style, our whole sense of humor is completely alien to them. Most of us understand the radicals, I think, for we were the last reading generation, and we know that each idea and goal which the New Left believes it has discovered was discovered by someone a few centuries ago. No, they’ll never understand us. Yet I’m flailing, and I fear that you still have no idea of what we were like. So let me try it this way. I wrote a story, sometime around ’56, which was published in a small, obscure, now-defunct periodical. The story became, for a year or so, famous at Columbia, and whenever I bump into survivors from those years they talk about it. The story, I think, can tell you more about how we were — what our humor was like — than pages of exposition. It’s called “A Manhattan Love Story,” and it goes like this (please read to the end): Artie Shaw’s clarinet cut momentarily through the smoke and babble of the small downtown bar. An old waiter with tired eyes approached the couple in the dim back booth. “Arv annuver?” “Please.” The man dissolved into the smoke. “It’s good, isn’t it?” “What?” “Us. You and I. The beer. The music. Even the waiter with the cleft palate. It’s all good.” “Funny. I’ve been here before.” “Me too. But it’s not like before, is it?” “Not at all.” “It’ll be this way from now on.” “Yes.” The drinks came and the man melted again. “I love you.” “I know.” “Say it.” “All right. I love you too.” “That’s right. I like the way you say that. No practice.” “No.” “Cigarette?” “Yes.” “No one smokes the way you do.” “Everyone smokes the same way.” “Nonsense, you little idiot. You smoke beautifully. Wait. There’s some tobacco on your lip. I just wanted to touch you.” “Do you really think I’m beautiful?” “You’re the most beautiful girl in the world. I’m beautiful too. We’re both beautiful.” “We are, aren’t we?” “You’re so damned young it hurts sometimes.” “There’ve been others, haven’t there?” “Yes, but none like you. Look, let’s go away. Europe. Maybe Greece.” “I’d love that. I can leave college tomorrow. No one cares. Only my aunts. And they’re too old to care much.” “By God, we’ll do it. We’ll go on a liner. A big one.” “Oh Lord, I’m so happy.” “Another drink?” “Let’s not.” “Good, we’ll go to my place.” “My dearest.” “You do love me don’t you?” “Yes.” “Say it.” “Please. You say it first.” “I love you, Anne.” “I love you too, Helen.” Silly, I know, and perhaps even embarrassingly innocent. But they loved it in the fifties. Even Kerouac. And wouldn’t they hate it now? We didn’t really see them coming. Toward the end of the fifties something had begun to stir around, something which made us vaguely uneasy, its shape not quite apprehensible. The beast was awakening, and, at first, it seemed an innocuous beast. It was a period of transition. The Korean veterans were finishing up their G.I. bills and were being replaced, in small trickles at first, by a new breed of very young (experientially) and very intense activists. They believed themselves born to free the Negro, to bring social justice to the world, and they took grim civil-right sabbaticals down South. Later they discovered abuses on the campuses and realized that there was no need to travel all the way to Mississippi to right wrongs. The civil rights movement became the anti-war movement which became the anti-America movement. They seemed uncomfortably reminiscent of those true believers … touched — like all true believers — with a strong streak of uneducated fascism. To us dinosaurs from the deep fifties, these were puzzling types, and we contented ourselves with drinking our Coors and baiting them. There was some sympathy, of course, for we as much as they held no brief for the condition of universities or for racial bigotry. And we didn’t really too much mind their intensity, for although the code of the mid-fifties, like the code of all neo-classical periods, called for us to eschew enthusiasm, something way down there in us responded to it (after all, our older mentors, the Beats, had been romantics). But these kids were humorless, and we didn’t like this at all. Then there was that other thing — a great deal of worldly innocence, although not innocence in the pristine sense. (One of the things that we hated was that almost overnight it became impossible to seduce girls in the great old roundabout way. You just slapped the New Breed girls on the rump and they cooperated willingly and immediately, like earnest young female missionaries accepting vaccination. No fun at all.) Worldly innocence all mixed up with a dogmatic conviction that they’d seen it all. And it made us uneasy, for they seemed uncomfortably reminiscent of those true believers Eric Hoffer had warned us about, touched — like all true believers — with a strong streak of uneducated fascism. And it wasn’t until much later, when the Berkeley riots first erupted, that we understood how right we were to be uneasy. I was never, as I mentioned earlier, a Beat. But my contemporaries and I shared a great deal in common with them, and our lifestyle — wandering, drinking, brawling, womanizing — was in great part based on theirs. We liked one another, we members of those two generations, and we shared an undiscussed but profound love for our country. My friends and I, I think, are the last survivors of a distinct era, running pretty much consistently from the twenties through the fifties. After us there is a great discontinuity, a chasm across which we’ve watched something entirely new — frighteningly European — grow up, something completely alien to the American experience. And the surviving Beats (with the exception of freak-outs like Allen Ginsberg, of course, who has had to adapt to ensure a continuing supply of young men) share our view of the New Breed. Kerouac died hating them. And Kerouac was almost exactly the same man in 1969 that he was in the mid-fifties. Fatter, less mobile, sick. But the same good man. But let me stop here. As I look back over this I realize that I haven’t at all done what Bob Tyrrell had asked me to do. So many things — professors, panty-raids, fights, trips, poetry, novels, bureaucrats, a little bar in Idaho, a waitress in Montana, boilermakers, jails, Fairbanks, Gallo, sweet lucy, sneaky pete, the Midnight Mission in L.A., truck drivers, Iron City beer, Tiajuana, wisecracks — all of which just have to be talked about if you’re to understand the fifties and the Beats and those of us who for a few quick years tried to carry on for them. Too much, and it all begs for a dozen more articles. But maybe this is at least a beginning. (Mr. Coyne’s bioline with this article read as follows: “John R. Coyne Jr. is an associate editor of National Review and chief of McSorley’s Anti-Feminist Patrol. His first book on the student movement will be published this fall, and he has assured us it will be his last book on trivia.”)
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

They’re Still Coming After the Kids

At the current political moment, American conservatives are in a rather good mood. Yes, their enemies wish them dead, but that can be explained by the fact that they’re racking up cultural and political victories. In just the last few weeks, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has managed to get the military shaved and back into the gym, President Donald Trump seems well on his way to restoring order in our cities, and the Democrats’ government shutdown (arguably a desperate bid to raise their abysmal ratings) may just result in the firing of extraneous federal employees — a popular Trump campaign promise. (READ MORE: Yes, Virginia, Jay Jones Is Evil) And yet, American leftists don’t seem to have gotten the memo. At the end of last week, Netflix went viral after Elon Musk decided to launch a campaign to cancel the entertainment platform for pushing LGBTQ themes in its children’s content. We’re talking shows like Dead End: Paranormal Park, in which a trans-identifying teenager deals with his angst at a haunted theme park, or a recent episode of The Baby-Sitters Club, in which kids learn that the only time you should argue with a medical professional is when he misgenders a trans patient (as though any medical professional would do that in our day and age). Then, of course, there’s CoComelon and CoComelon Lane, which both feature a cross-dressing toddler dancing for his two gay “dads” (nothing vaguely pedophilic about that, of course). While these specific examples generated an internet storm large enough to get “Cancel Netflix” trending on Google, they weren’t exactly breaking news. Most of us knew (or at least suspected) that Netflix was still pushing these kinds of themes on our kids — and it’s not the only one. Popular shows like Peppa Pig (a British production available on Netflix and YouTube Kids) and Bluey also subtly push LGBTQ themes on the toddlers who watch them. One of Peppa Pig’s classmates talks about living with “my mommy and my other mommy” while drawing pictures in a kindergarten class. Meanwhile, Bluey subtly introduces a character’s “mums” in its Season 3 finale. Of course, the indoctrination doesn’t just happen on television; it’s still taking place in our schools. Of course, the indoctrination doesn’t just happen on television; it’s still taking place in our schools. The New Braunfels school district in Texas (located some 30 miles outside San Antonio) conveniently lists the books in their school libraries in an online database. A recent search for “LGBTQ” pulled more than 40 results at one middle school library, while a search for books on “racism” landed more than 80. (READ MORE: Battling the Hollywood Hydra) One might point out that public opinion on these matters has shifted suddenly. In 2020, schools and corporations were bullied into pushing all sorts of radical ideologies — most of them employed people who believed that touting “acceptance” and “tolerance” to audiences of all ages (but most especially to children) was integral to building a better and happier world. Then, all of a sudden, those same companies were boycotted, and those schools found themselves under fire from angry parents who showed up at school board meetings. This year’s Pride festivities notably lacked the corporate funding and enthusiasm that LGBTQ activists (and most conservatives) thought were a given. (RELATED: Our Two Main Parties Are Non-Christian but Only One Is Demonic) How is an organization supposed to keep up with rapidly changing public opinion? Take, for instance, the case of PBS Kids, Nickelodeon, or Netflix. All of these entertainment companies spent years building massive libraries of content for their subscribers. The aforementioned problematic episodes of shows like CoComelon and Bluey came out in early 2024 — before the shift away from shoving radical ideologies down our children’s throats was a well-established fact. How exactly were they supposed to predict that, in just over a year, those same episodes would drive their customers to cancel their subscriptions en masse? The solution these companies seem to have landed on is to hope that parents will simply forget that those problematic episodes ever existed in the first place — after all, taking them down would probably just make the other side of the aisle furious. That’s a strategy that simply can’t be allowed to work. If we are truly serious about protecting our children from indoctrination in bizarre ideologies that deny basic realities, we have to wash every trace of that ideology from shows, libraries, and classrooms with a vengeance. Netflix will need to be boycotted and made a public spectacle until it removes its offensive content. Disney will need to be pressured until it produces shows aligned with reality and steeped in traditional values. Until we do, ideological ghosts of the past will continue to teach our children that Jane can become Joe and that it’s totally normal to have two mommies — and that’s hardly the way to win the culture war. READ MORE by Aubrey Harris: Our Bearded, Body-Positive Military Is No More Now Even Stay-At-Home Moms are Fascist Are Americans Finally Getting It?
Like
Comment
Share
Country Roundup
Country Roundup
6 w ·Youtube Music

YouTube
Alan Jackson’s Heartbreaking Goodbye to Fans
Like
Comment
Share
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
6 w

Reporter: “I’m living proof that you can recover form TDS”
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

Reporter: “I’m living proof that you can recover form TDS”

You gotta love this moment today from President Trump’s roundtable… Meet reporter Brandi Kruse, a self-described former sufferer of Trump Derangement Syndrome who is now fully healed and loving life! Gotta love it. Watch this short clip here: Backup here if needed: Independent journalist Brandi Kruse admits to President Trump she previously had ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’: “I’m living proof you can recover from TDS … And now I find you quite funny, actually.” pic.twitter.com/uwxvmMo7N2 — Fox News (@FoxNews) October 8, 2025 Share!
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 5434 out of 99358
  • 5430
  • 5431
  • 5432
  • 5433
  • 5434
  • 5435
  • 5436
  • 5437
  • 5438
  • 5439
  • 5440
  • 5441
  • 5442
  • 5443
  • 5444
  • 5445
  • 5446
  • 5447
  • 5448
  • 5449
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund