The cost of gasoline has skyrocketed under President Joe Biden‚ but he has been utterly unmindful of the burden he is putting on the American people because of his concerted war against oil‚ a war he proudly announced he would initiate if he won the White House. Indeed‚ the war...

An alarming number of young Americans now face an intense spiritual crisis. And an equally alarming number of adults have enabled the diabolical delusions that crisis has produced. On Thursday‚ the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland announced the arrest of Andrea Ye‚ an 18-year-old high school student who identifies...

President Joe Biden's black voter base is dwindling. Whether it's because of his handling of the Israel-Hamas war‚ the enormous economic strain forcing many Americans to take on additional shifts or second jobs‚ or even his push to ban menthol cigarettes‚ black Americans are taking a second look at the...

A deep dive into Rush’s divisive 80s period‚ when side-long epics were out and synths came in

The central protagonist in Civil War—a dystopian tale of a near-future America at war with itself—is a veteran combat photographer for Reuters named Lee (Kirsten Dunst). The film follows Lee and a small group of other photojournalists seeking to chronicle a climactic Washington‚ D.C.‚ battle in the film’s hypothetical war. At one point‚ a young colleague‚ Jesse (Cailee Spaeny) asks Lee about what’s going on in the bloody chaos they’re capturing in photographs. Jesse is a proxy for the audience because we too are naturally curious about the “why‚” “what‚” and “who” questions surrounding this conflict. But Lee responds‚ “We don’t ask. We record so other people ask.” Here‚ Lee is speaking for the film’s creator‚ British filmmaker Alex Garland (Ex Machina). In Civil War‚ Garland intentionally avoids answering questions raised by the imagery he depicts. And the questions are many: How did this civil war start&;#63; How long has it been going on&;#63; Are any other nations involved&;#63; What political issue would cause Texas and California to forge a military alliance&;#63; Why is New York City a war-ravaged ghost town while other towns are seemingly untouched&;#63; Why is Canadian currency so valuable&;#63; Why do the “Western Forces” want to assassinate the “three-term” U.S. president (played by Nick Offerman)&;#63; Who is the terrifying guy in the red sunglasses (Jesse Plemons)‚ and what does he mean when he asks‚ “What kind of American are you&;#63;” Perhaps most importantly‚ is there a morally “right” side in this conflict&;#63; Viewers of the film—which‚ I’d warn‚ is full of R-rated language and intense violence—will no doubt have many of these questions. But Garland is doggedly insistent the only responsibility of the film‚ like the neutral press photographers it follows‚ is to show‚ not tell; to record‚ not explain. Garland challenges the viewer to fill in the gaps: What do you think the imagery in this film means&;#63; How would you sketch a speculative history in which America gets to a place like this&;#63; Impassioned explanations will be as wildly varied as the array of hot takes spawned by any major news story. Ultimately‚ it’s not Civil War’s vision of a future dystopia that makes it disturbing; it’s that the film embodies the diverging realities we’re already in. Americans are living in different microworlds‚ and in any given image or video mediated to us (like this film)‚ we see different things. Algorithms and Interpretive Chaos Civil War is a mirror not because it reflects our current political partisanship but because it reflects a world where increasingly few of us see the same reality or share a common narrative. It’s not the film’s content that captures the zeitgeist so much as the interpretive chaos it spawns. It’s not the film’s content that captures the zeitgeist so much as the interpretive chaos it spawns. The movie made me think of something Jaron Lanier wrote about the algorithm-fueled fragmentation of our social media age. He called it an “epochal development” because of how it erodes capacity for empathy or shared narratives: “The version of the world you are seeing is invisible to the people who misunderstand you‚ and vice versa. . . . We see less than ever before of what others are seeing‚ so we have less opportunity to understand each other.” Every Civil War audience member is seeing the same film‚ but the ideas and emotions conjured in each mind will be vastly different—formed in large part by the hyperindividualized “realities” each has been fed by algorithms. Garland gives viewers puzzle pieces but leaves us to connect them and see what larger picture emerges. The pieces are intentionally rendered to provoke a variety of interpretations. What would cause a California-Texas alliance (Western Forces)‚ for example‚ is fodder for all manner of interpretations. Depending on a viewer’s preexisting biases‚ readings will run the gamut. Those prone to interpreting reality through a critical race theory lens may conclude that the film’s “war” is primarily driven by racism. “Stop the steal” sympathizers might see Civil War through the lens of January 6. Anti-fascists and libertarians‚ feminists and nativists‚ and everyone in between will find evidence to imagine an explanation of Civil War that suits their politics. Those who hate Trump might find the film’s climax cathartic. Those who hate Biden might as well. This is Garland’s point. The film’s final images‚ set to the unnerving 1979 song “Dream Baby Dream” (by American band Suicide)‚ are unsettling in what they conjure within us. More optimistic viewers might interpret the song as Garland’s collective challenge to avoid dystopia and double down on the dream of a United States of America. But I think he more likely wants each of us to ponder how the ending’s jarring imagery fits into our dreams and fantasies‚ driven by pent-up grievances and desires for justice and revenge. The film leaves audiences with an unsettling question: If part of you likes how this movie ends‚ why&;#63; More Satisfying Justice Still‚ as interesting as this “choose your own Civil War fantasy adventure” concept might be—especially as a commentary on our techno-fueled fragmentation and diverging senses of justice—it’s not exactly satisfying. What we really desire isn’t a vague vision of justice‚ in which any of us can see a personal victory or declare morally “right” a triumph (as long as it’s our side winning). What we want is a specific justice for evils about which there’s consensus. We want a narrative of victory that’s good and true not just for one tribe or another but for all. Our hypersubjective‚ to-each-their-own-reality world is leaving us empty. We don’t want ambiguity about what the fight is for; we don’t want tribalism for the sake of tribalism (which only benefits media corporations—something hinted at in Civil War). War is brutal and the cost of liberation is great. We naturally want it to be for a morally just cause. Our hypersubjective‚ to-each-their-own-reality world is leaving us empty. We don’t want ambiguity about what the fight is for; we don’t want tribalism for the sake of tribalism. Civil War has frustrated many viewers—and more than a few critics—for its refusal to weigh in on questions of just war or the relative moral merit of one cause or another. Even if Garland’s “objective journalist” posture is understandable‚ it’s also understandably frustrating to audiences‚ who might see it as bothsidesism‚ thirdwayism‚ or neutral head-in-the-sandism. Why do we dislike these “isms”&;#63; Because we’re wired to desire absolute truth and moral clarity. In our gut‚ we know there are good and bad guys‚ right and wrong sides‚ just and unjust wars. Objective reporting of reality serves a crucial purpose‚ but it’s not an end unto itself. We also need evaluation and interpretation that happens not according to partisan scripts (as is too often the case in today’s media landscape) but according to a higher‚ universal grid. This “wiring” for moral clarity comes from God‚ who is the only logical basis on which words like “good‚” “right‚” and “just” can ever be objectively defined. Our desires for specificity and universality in these questions is a powerful proof of God’s existence‚ as is the emotional satisfaction we feel when we watch something clearly good prevail over something clearly evil. In contrast to the unsatisfying ambiguity of Civil War’s violent vagaries‚ consider the endings of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (spoilers ahead). The former gives audiences the shared satisfaction of watching Hitler get assassinated along with a theater full of Nazis. The latter presents satisfying imagery of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio killing the Manson family murderers before they can kill Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). We like these images of revisionist history because we like morally clear justice. It’s the same reason why the most beloved war movies tend to be the ones where the “sides” are obvious and the costly sacrifices are clearly meaningful. Most Prescient Point It may be unintentional‚ but Civil War’s most prescient point is probably that ambiguous‚ arbitrary‚ might-makes-right justice is sadly the only “justice” possible in a secular age. When a culture abandons God‚ it abandons the only foundation for justice. When a culture abandons God‚ it abandons the only foundation for justice. This is a depressing point‚ and it’s why Civil War is a pretty depressing movie. But it also highlights an opportunity for Christians because we do have a narrative of ultimate justice that isn’t dependent on human judges. We have a metanarrative that pieces together history’s puzzle and guides us through life’s chaos. We have resources to hope amid suffering‚ reconcile in the face of conflict‚ and recognize truth in a sea of opinions. We have all these things because we’ve found them in our holy God—a wholly righteous Judge—and we should help others find them in him too.

A boy is at his kitchen table waiting for his mother to pour him a glass of milk. He then notices his father‚ but it isn't actually him. Was it a doppelganger‚ and did it contribute to a later incident&;#63; I received the following account:&;quot;I can only assume what I and my mom encountered was a doppelganger. Before I start my story‚ my dad used to work at night. Anyway‚ when I was around 10 years old I lived in a townhouse with my mom and dad (up until my mom passed away less than a couple months later) and she was pouring me some milk in the kitchen like every other night and I was winding down for school the next day. There was nothing scary about this night and I was just waiting for my mom to pour milk and looking out into our living room in front of me looking at things and just waiting.However‚ as my head swivels from looking around my dad appeared in front of a closet door in our living room. It didn't scare me at first since I just assumed it was my dad‚ but looking back there was no noise ever made. Our doors and floors creaked and with how quiet it was we would have heard anyone moving around. However‚ what was so scary about it was that &;quot;my dad&;quot; was just standing there and staring at us from across the room. I still was under the impression this was my dad but the longer he kept standing there and staring at me the scarier it got. He didn't move an inch‚ didn't blink‚ and the longer I kept looking at him I noticed his eyes were too small. They were wide open but small enough to where it looked wrong.I remember I started to blink and rub my eyes because I thought maybe I was seeing things‚ but it just kept standing there for a good minute longer until it disappeared after a blink. No noise at all. There was no way considering it disappeared in a blink for it to have humanly moved that fast without making some kind of sound. The only way it could have disappeared as fast as it did was if it slammed the door shut behind it.I remember how terrified I was at that point and looking to my mom to see if she saw it too but when she didn't say anything and so I assumed I just hallucinated it. That was until a few years ago I was telling my dad about that night and he told me my mom had also seen it‚ but due to her mental health problems and me not saying anything to her (or him) about it (I hadn't said anything when I looked at her) he dismissed it as a hallucination. Nothing quite like that has ever happened to me again‚ but that experience was why I couldn't sleep without a light on for years.Before that day I was not afraid of the dark‚ I didn't believe in ghosts (didn't even understand people could actually die at that point and was not really exposed to religion and not recently either). Every night after that incident until we moved I was petrified to even sleep in my room.I feel that I need to mention that my mother‚ because of her mental illness‚ took her own life. I now wonder if that strange incident contributed to her demise.&;quot; UWEIRDEST OF THE WEIRD&;#33; | Join Us For LIVE CHAT | Questions &; Answers #Wolfman #DeerMan #BigfootLISTEN TO NARRATIONS OF PHANTOMS &; MONSTERS REPORTS &; CASES - PLEASE SUBSCRIBE‚ LIKE &; SHAREPHANTOMS &; MONSTERS RADIO Podcasts on SpotifyPHANTOMS &; MONSTERS READING LISTCHICAGO MOTHMAN / O'HARE BATMAN YouTube PlaylistHave you had a sighting or encounter&;#63;Contact me by email or call the hotline at 410-241-5974Thanks. LonHAVE A COMMENT&;#63; GO TO OUR SUBREDDIT AND POST YOUR THOUGHTSJOIN AMAZON PRIME - Unlimited Movie/TV Streaming&; FREE 2-Day ShippingRegister a SNAP EBT CardTry Audible PlusPHANTOMS &; MONSTERS READING LIST----------Access Phantoms &; Monsters Posts on Twitter 'X'-----YOUR SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED&;#33; THANKS-----WENDIGO MYTHOLOGY - WHAT ARE THEY&;#63; | Join Us For LIVE CHAT | Questions &; Answers #Wendigo #CannibalThe wendigo has been misappropriated from its original context in Algonquin folklore. The word &;quot;Wendigo&;quot; roughly means “The Evil Spirit Who Devours Mankind.” Originally it was depicted as a cannibal ice giant and cautionary tale relevant to the realities of Algonquin life. Euro-American popular culture mutilated it into what may only be described as a &;quot;zombie-were-deer.&;quot;First‚ the Algonquin monster has relevance to their traditional way of life. Their culture was reliant on teamwork‚ so selfishness is a deadly sin to them‚ and the wendigo is the ultimate embodiment of that.Secondly‚ wendigo psychosis is a real mental illness and was historically used as a justification to destroy the Algonquin culture. There are written accounts in the last two centuries of people suffering from this illness being murdered by their peers.So then‚ how was the Wendigo tale altered&;#63; This goes back over a century to Algernon Blackwood's story &;quot;The Wendigo.&;quot; The story does not depict a Wendigo but seems to get it confused with the Inuit (not Algonquin) creature Ijiraq and possibly the Tariaksuq. In the story‚ the monster burns away a victim's feet with friction‚ while in myth the Ijiraq is sometimes described as stripping the flesh off its victim's shins and if it survives then it becomes a faster runner. The Ijiraq is otherwise described as a trickster who kidnaps children or lures hunters by pretending to be caribou. So‚ it is easy to assume Blackwood read about the Ijiraq and then twisted the details for his own story.Now Euro-American popular culture takes the name of an Algonquin cannibal ice giant and applies it to a zombie-were-deer; it has been utterly stripped of its original context and symbolism. I doubt there will ever be much push-back against the zombie-wear-deer version since it has been burned into popular culture at this point.Now‚ that being stated‚ I'm going to present several modern-day accounts that some of the witnesses described as the ‘Wendigo.' Then you can determine what the creature in the report is. Is it an original folktale of the cannibal ice giant or something a bit more contemporary&;#63;-----ORDER THE AUDIOBOOK VERSIONORDER THE AUDIOBOOK VERSIONProject Threshold: Finale-----Your financial support of Phantoms &; Monsters and our other pursuits is much appreciated. Please click the banner above. Thanks.Have you had a sighting or encounter&;#63;Contact us by email or call the hotline at 410-241-5974Thanks. LonContact us by email or call the hotline at 410-241-5974Also available with audiobooknarration by Terry Springs‚CBS-TV Las Vegas affiliate.The Dark Arts of MISTER SAM SHEARON - Original Prints &; MerchandiseThis blog and newsletter are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Work 3.0 United States License.Registered trademark PHANTOMS AND MONSTERS ® / PHANTOMS &; MONSTERS ® - USPTO #90902480 - Lon D. Strickler© 2005-2024 Phantoms &; Monsters - All Rights Reserved

Journey through nature with our guide to the ten best hiking trails with breathtaking views. From mountain panoramas to coastal cliffs‚ each trail promises an unforgettable adventure. Lace up your boots and prepare to be inspired by the beauty of the great outdoors. Related: 10 Lesser-Known Places That Deserve National Park Status 10 South Kaibab […] The post 10 Best Hiking Trails in America with Breathtaking Views appeared first on Listverse.

Journalists always try to get it right. It’s in the job description‚ after all. They are supposed to report on the news‚ tell the public what happened‚ and keep their readers or viewers informed about what is going on in the world when it comes to their beat—be it local politics‚ national politics‚ crime‚ or […] The post Ten Journalists Who Got Caught Faking the News appeared first on Listverse.

A scathing report by three federal judges on the “misconduct” of plaintiff lawyers in a challenge to Alabama’s ban on gender-transition medicine for minors illustrates something we learned a long time ago: Many on the far Left‚ including radical lawyers employed by self-proclaimed civil rights organizations‚ believe the ends always justify the means and that rules of ethics don’t apply to them. The report is the result of an investigation into the lawyers who filed three related lawsuits—Walker v. Marshall‚ Ladinsky v. Ivey‚ and Eknes-Tucker v. Ivey—challenging Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act in 2022. The state enacted the law that year to eliminate the use of experimental hormonal and surgical procedures on minors who experience discomfort with their biological sex. The final report‚ issued by three judges representing each of the three federal court districts in Alabama‚ was initiated after Judge Liles C. Burke accused the lawyers of judge-shopping to get a particular judge they wanted assigned to the cases. Judge Burke called it “a particularly pernicious form of forum shopping” and “a practice that has the propensity to create the appearance of impropriety in the judicial system.” Ouch&;#33; The judges obtained sworn testimony from the 39 plaintiff lawyers who filed these lawsuits. After holding five hearings‚ they concluded “without reservation” that 11 of the lawyers in the Walker and Ladinsky lawsuits engaged in “misconduct” by attempting to “circumvent the random case-assignment procedures” of the Alabama federal courts. The investigation went forward despite some of the lawyers’ claims that the investigation violated their right to due process. So‚ what happened after Alabama passed this much-needed statute protecting minors from radically experimental medical interventions‚ now disfavored among most European nations&;#63; The 53-page report goes into great detail: The lawyers tried to avoid the random-assignment policy and the assignment of the case to Judge Burke by claiming the cases were related to another case that had been closed “for over a year.” That case‚ Corbitt v. Taylor‚ challenged an Alabama law preventing individuals from obtaining a driver’s license listing a gender different from their biological sex unless they could show they had undergone surgical and medical treatments to change their gender. Judge Myron Thompson‚ a Carter appointee‚ held‚ absurdly enough‚ that the law violated the 14th Amendment. According to the report‚ the lawyers did everything they could “in an attempt to steer the case to Judge Thompson—including marking the case as supposedly related to Corbitt and calling Judge Thompson’s chambers” to talk to him about the case‚ even though the case had never been assigned to him. After the case was assigned to Judge Burke‚ the lawyers dismissed the lawsuits‚ then refiled almost immediately to get a different judge. The lawyers who engaged in the misconduct include those from the Southern Poverty Law Center‚ the American Civil Liberties Union‚ GLBTQ Legal Advocates &; Defenders‚ Lambda Legal‚ and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Why does this matter&;#63; Because‚ as the report points out‚ the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said that trying to circumvent the random assignment of cases “constitutes a threat to the orderly administration of justice.” And according to the 5th Circuit‚ such manipulation brings the “judicial system itself into disrepute” and “permit[s] unscrupulous litigants and lawyers to thwart our system of judicial administration.” The judges went to great lengths to point out the misbehavior of one of the lawyers: Carl Charles‚ a former Lambda Legal employee who now works at the Justice Department. He was interviewed twice about ex parte phone calls he made (without the knowledge of the defendants’ lawyers) to Judge Thompson’s chambers‚ the details of which Charles “reported” to the other lawyers working on the Walker case “via email.” When asked multiple times about these calls‚ Charles “unequivocally and repeatedly testified that he did not call [the] judge’s chambers.” It was only after the interviewing judges “read his cellphone number to him” that Charles suddenly asked if he “could correct his earlier answers and admitted that he did call Judge Thompson’s chambers.” Yes‚ Charles—a lawyer who now works for the Department of Justice—lied to the panel of judges under oath until he was confronted with hard evidence that exposed the lie. The question now is whether any of their employers or state bar associations will take any disciplinary action against any of these lawyers. So far‚ at least‚ there is no indication that the Justice Department‚ the private firms‚ the advocacy organizations or state bar authorities have done so. Apparently‚ so long as you’re litigating a “woke” cause‚ anything goes. Originally published by The Washington Times The post Dirty Deeds Done in the Dark: Leftist Lawyers Caught Engaging in Attorney Misconduct appeared first on The Daily Signal.