The New York Times ran a repellent interview in its opinion section Friday, “We Need to Rethink How We Think About the Holocaust -- Professor Marianne Hirsch on how the way we teach the ‘crime of all crimes’ informs our understanding of Gaza.” By “rethink,” the paper means downplay the Holocaust and to lie about the war in Gaza as a "genocide." Hirsch of Columbia University was interviewed by Times columnist M. Gessen, formerly Masha Gessen, who now goes by “they.” Can one even imagine the New York Times in a previous era complaining about the “outsize influence of the Holocaust” and weaponing the Holocaust against its Jewish victims? M. Gessen: Throughout the war in Gaza, Israeli leaders and their supporters in the United States have invoked the Holocaust to justify their actions….Some scholars of the Holocaust — people who have spent their professional lives keeping the memory of the catastrophe alive — are worried. They worry that their work has been repurposed as war propaganda and as justification for committing a genocide....There is a very strongly articulated position that the Holocaust should never be compared to anything.... Hirsch: …. And there’s an outsize influence of the Holocaust that then obscures other histories and also obscures what is happening right now: the genocide in Gaza, which the exceptionalism of the Holocaust has fostered denial of other genocides.... To further smear Israel, Hirsch misled about the Nakba of 1948, when Britain partitioned the Palestinian Mandate, cleaving out a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood but the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews in the region. Several Arab countries then launched a failed war on Israel to strangle the Jewish homeland in its crib. As in Gaza, when Israel-haters start losing a war that they started, they blame the Jews. Hirsch: ….one historical phenomenon that is part of the Holocaust is actually the formation of the state of Israel and the Nakba — the expulsion of Palestinians. So I think when we teach the Holocaust now, that has to be somehow part of the history. Our interrelation of Holocaust memory and Nakba memory really has to be taken into account. The professor told Gessen why she felt compelled to drop her course at Columbia University because Jewish students had the false sense of being victimized on campus. Never mind the constant harassment and threats against Jews at Columbia and other progressive hotbeds during the pro-Hamas rallies. HIrsch…. the way universities — including my own, Columbia — have conceded that they are hotbeds of antisemitism, and that Jewish students are suffering, has fostered a sense of Jewish victimization. That feeling of victimization prevents us from making the kinds of connections I’ve just been talking about. Hirsch praised Gessen for previously comparing Gaza to the Nazi's Warsaw Ghetto for Jews: "You compared it to the Warsaw ghetto and wrote something that was so memorable and devastating: 'The ghetto is being liquidated.' How are you thinking about this now?" Gessen responded by agreeing with her own words and then again redefining “genocide” so Israel could fit into the parameters (though it still didn’t). Gessen: It’s still being liquidated….Reporters would insist that obviously Gaza wasn’t a ghetto, and obviously it wasn’t being liquidated. Those were fascinating conversations, because I realized just how little many of them actually knew. I think the most important thing they didn’t understand — and that we often fail to understand — is that genocide is a process. Lately, I’ve been reporting a series on international justice and war crimes, and I realized that, legally, one of the key distinctions between genocide and crimes against humanity is precisely this: Genocide is a process. Crimes against humanity occur when large numbers of people are killed — or when civilians are intentionally targeted, or when there’s blatant disregard for human life. But genocide is different: It unfolds over time. It begins with setting the conditions for mass killing — with propaganda, with creating a climate in which many people can be killed — and then with gradually eliminating the conditions for life itself. So starvation is very much a part of this genocide…. The post-ceasefire figures prove there was no starvation in Gaza, and certainly no genocide, as the ratio of civilian deaths to combat deaths was 1.5-to-1, a tribute to the Israeli army. But don’t expect such facts to penetrate the sealed anti-Israel propaganda bubble of the New York Times, which is far more concerned about fake “Islamophobia” than the actual anti-Semitism of Holocaust diminishment demonstrated in this interview.

Midway through day number 30 of the government shutdown, CNN's Dana Bash discussed the situation with both House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) in separate interviews on Thursday's "Inside Politics", on CNN, and although the topic was the same, her questions and  Bash's handling of each guest's responses were noticeably different. First it was Speaker Johnson's turn. Bash's first question to Johnson involved the President revealing that he had instructed the Pentagon to begin testing nuclear weapons again for the first time in more than 30 years. Next she turned to the shutdown, and the possibility that a partial deal could be reached that would keep funding SNAP, which is set to expire on Saturday. Johnson asked why not keep all programs going, by having the Democrats agree to open the government, and Bash responded:  BASH: So, just to put a pin in it, all or nothing. Full government funding for the entire government, or you're not going to bring anything up on the House floor, even if the Senate finds some sort of compromise? JOHNSON: Yeah, because they're trying to play games and we are not interested in doing that. That's the position of the leadership, Republican leadership in the Senate and the House and the White House as well. We have to do well and right by all the American people... BASH.... But why are you drawing the line now on 40 million Americans who literally will not be able to eat without government assistance? Why not help them in the short term?... JOHNSON: Wait a minute, wait. I reject the premise of the question. I'm not drawing the line. The Democrats are drawing the line... All the cabinet secretaries are doing everything they can to mitigate and reduce the pain. But that ability is not available for SNAP because the contingency fund had to be prior authorized by Congress. BASH: Well, they say that that's not what the law shows. JOHNSON: No, that's ridiculous. BASH: And certainly, the administration has shown they are very happy -- money around without Congress saying, yes. JOHNSON: No, Dana. They're just simply not true. It's already been adjudicated... The Democrats have put the American people in this crisis, and they are the ones that have the power to end it. They could do it today, if they feel enough pressure to do so. Bash then wanted to know if, now that the President had returned from his overseas trip, he would get involved and bring the sides together to cut a deal.  BASH: You know, he could -- he could make a deal on this in five minutes. JOHNSON: He can't. There's no deal to be made. Remember, the CR does not have Trump or Republican priorities on it at all. There's nothing we can pull off of that to make it more palatable for the Democrats. I would have done that a long time ago...  As you can see, Bash was not bashful about confronting the Speaker. Her interview later with Booker, was nowhere near as hard hitting. CNN isn't fair and balanced. To her credit, she started out with a tough one on SNAP.  "Are there some Democrats do you, sir, because you voted no, bear some responsibility for endangering people's food aid?" But she then let Booker spew talking points uninterrupted for a minute and a half. She later said, "So you say that Republicans are being cruel, but it's also true that you just have to vote yes, and four other Democratic senators have to vote yes, and the government will be reopened." But she then allowed Booker to ramble on for almost two full minutes without interruption, before she switched topics to the New Jersey Governor's race.  There is no doubt that Speaker Johnson has a more powerful position, and tough questions are fair, but there is also no doubt that Bash played by two sets of rules during her two sessions. Of course this is not unique to these interviews, not unique to Bash, and not unique to CNN. It's called liberal media bias.

The New York Times recently profiled Scott Jacqmein, an actor from Dallas who sold his likeness to TikTok for $750 and a free trip to the Bay Area. He hasn’t landed any TV shows, movies, or commercials, but his AI-generated likeness has — a virtual version of Jacqmein is now “acting” in countless ads on TikTok. As the Times put it, Jacqmein “fields one or two texts a week from acquaintances and friends who are pretty sure they have seen him pitching a peculiar range of businesses on TikTok.”Now, Jacqmein “has regrets.” But why? He consented to sell his likeness. His image isn’t being used illegally. He wanted to act, and now — at least digitally — he’s acting. His regrets seem less about ethics and more about economics.The more perfect the imitation, the greater the lie. What people crave isn’t flawless illusion — it’s authenticity.Times reporter Sapna Maheshwari suggests as much. Her story centers on the lack of royalties and legal protections for people like Jacqmein.She also raises moral concerns, citing examples where digital avatars were used to promote objectionable products or deliver offensive messages. In one case, Jacqmein’s AI double pitched a “male performance supplement.” In another, a TikTok employee allegedly unleashed AI avatars reciting passages from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” TikTok removed the tool that made the videos possible after CNN brought the story to light.When faces become propertyThese incidents blur into a larger problem — the same one raised by deepfakes. In recent months, digital impostors have mimicked public figures from Bishop Robert Barron to the pope. The Vatican itself has had to denounce fake homilies generated in the likeness of Leo XIV. Such fabrications can mislead, defame, or humiliate.But the deepest problem with digital avatars isn’t that they deceive. It’s that they aren’t real.Even if Jacqmein were paid handsomely and religious figures embraced synthetic preaching as legitimate evangelism, something about the whole enterprise would remain wrong. Selling one’s likeness is a transaction of the soul. It’s unsettling because it treats what’s uniquely human — voice, gesture, and presence — as property to be cloned and sold.When a person licenses his “digital twin,” he doesn’t just part with data. He commodifies identity itself. The actor’s expressions, tone, and mannerisms become a bundle of intellectual property. Someone else owns them now.That’s why audiences instinctively recoil at watching AI puppets masquerade and mimic people. Even if the illusion is technically impressive, it feels hollow. A digital replica can’t evoke the same moral or emotional response as a real human being.Selling the soulThis isn’t a new theme in art or philosophy. In a classic “Simpsons” episode, Bart sells his soul to his pal Milhouse for $5 and soon feels hollow, haunted by nightmares, convinced he’s lost something essential. The joke carries a metaphysical truth: When we surrender what defines us as human — even symbolically — we suffer a real loss.For those who believe in an immortal soul, as Jesuit philosopher Robert Spitzer argues in “Science at the Doorstep to God,” this loss is more than psychological. To sell one’s likeness is to treat the image of the divine within as a market commodity. The transaction might seem trivial — a harmless digital contract — but the symbolism runs deep.Oscar Wilde captured this inversion of morality in “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” His protagonist stays eternally young while his portrait, the mirror of his soul, decays. In our digital age, the roles are reversed: The AI avatar remains young and flawless while the human model ages, forgotten and spiritually diminished.Jacqmein can’t destroy his portrait. It’s contractually owned by someone else. If he wants to stop his digital self from hawking supplements or energy drinks, he’ll need lawyers — and he’ll probably lose. He’s condemned to watch his AI double enjoy a flourishing career while he struggles to pay rent. The scenario reads like a lost episode of “Black Mirror” — a man trapped in a parody of his own success. (In fact, “The Waldo Moment” and “Hang the DJ” come close to this.)RELATED: Cybernetics promised a merger of human and computer. Then why do we feel so out of the loop? Photo by imaginima via Getty ImagesThe moral exitThe conventional answer to this dilemma is regulation: copyright reforms, consent standards, watermarking requirements. But the real solution begins with refusal. Actors shouldn’t sell their avatars. Consumers shouldn’t support platforms that replace people with synthetic ghosts.If TikTok and other media giants populate their feeds with digital clones, users should boycott them and demand “fair-trade human content.” Just as conscientious shoppers insist on buying ethically sourced goods, viewers should insist on art and advertising made by living, breathing humans.Tech evangelists argue that AI avatars will soon become indistinguishable from the people they’re modeled on. But that misses the point. The more perfect the imitation, the greater the lie. What people crave isn’t flawless illusion — it’s authenticity. They want to see imperfection, effort, and presence. They want to see life.If we surrender that, we’ll lose something far more valuable than any acting career or TikTok deal. We’ll lose the very thing that makes us human.

Across the country, Americans have begun realizing they have a gluten sensitivity — but other countries don’t have the same issue. And according to Christian homesteader Michelle Visser, it’s not the fault of bread, but rather, how it’s made in America.“Talking about other countries, back when we were adding into our flour and enriching it, other countries didn’t do that. In fact, in Italy, they had a pellagra outbreak around the same time that we were dealing with it here, but they responded completely different in little towns in Italy,” Visser tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.“They literally built communal ovens, bread ovens, and they encouraged them to use good grains, which had not gone through the green revolution of our country ... and make whole wheat bread,” she explains.“They knew that it was related to folate, and they knew it was dietary, and they said, ‘What can we do? We have in these small towns a lot of poor people who can’t necessarily afford good food. So one thing is, let's at least give them the equipment to make the bread,’” she continues.And the result of this, Visser explains, was wiping out pellagra — which was attributed to spoiled bread and polenta.“So do you think gluten is unfairly demonized?” Stuckey asks.“I think it is,” Visser says, using Norman Borlaug, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, as an example of being focused on the wrong issue when it comes to gluten.“He had figured out how to manipulate wheat to give it a higher yield and to just simply grow more wheat for your buck. And while there’s definite advantages to understanding plant science, unfortunately, every time that we genetically change or we breed certain characteristics into any of our food, we are losing some nutrition,” she tells Stuckey.“When they started milling it with the steel mills, they went from 20 barrels of flour a day to 500 barrels of flour a day with no extra energy, no extra expense. So there’s definitely money involved in the whole story is what I’m saying,” she explains.“This bread that has been stripped of the good stuff, inserted with the synthetic stuff, that is maybe what’s causing the problems, especially in America,” Stuckey comments, surprised.“Yeah,” Vasser confirms, noting that we’ve also added more protein into modern-day wheat, which has created a “franken-wheat.”And then on top of what already is “franken-wheat,” wheat manufacturers have begun using pesticides and herbicides.“If you are not buying organic flour, glyphosate is in trace amounts in your flour. It’s just, it’s there ... if we are exposing our gut to glyphosate, we are killing the good bacteria. We’ve had gut problems in this country for many decades ... and I think a lot of it has to do with this glyphosate in our flour.”Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Arrest Boasberg NOW: You Won't Believe This List of Charges Brought Under Biden's DOJ Is Real But It IS

Watch: John Brennan Loses It When Confronted by Former Tulsi DNI Advisor About Laptop Letter and the ICA

Demand superior sound? Discover the 12 best wireless speakers for audiophiles, ranked by Consumer Reports for ultimate audio quality and performance.

Apple claims the iPhone 17 offers a major battery upgrade, but here's how it fares against its competitors like the Xiaomi 15, OnePlus 13, Pixel 10, and more.

ChatGPT can help streamline your workday when given the proper guidance, like these 5 prompts that enable it to deliver a tailored response.

President Donald Trump made another impassioned plea for Senate Republicans to invoke the nuclear option, passing the House GOP continuing resolution on a simple majority vote.