Books Front Lines and Frontiers Touring the Solar System: Spacehounds of IPC by E.E. “Doc” Smith An early, standalone adventure that Smith considered to be his finest work. By Alan Brown | Published on November 12, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share In this bi-weekly series reviewing classic science fiction and fantasy books, Alan Brown looks at the front lines and frontiers of the field; books about soldiers and spacers, scientists and engineers, explorers and adventurers. Stories full of what Shakespeare used to refer to as “alarums and excursions”: battles, chases, clashes, and the stuff of excitement. E.E. “Doc” Smith was a seminal figure in the early days of science fiction. While he is best known for his long-running Lensman and Skylark series, his second book, Spacehounds of IPC, is worthy of note. It is a standalone adventure that features a couple’s struggle for survival after the spaceship they are traveling on is cut apart by mysterious aliens from the planet Jupiter. Their adventures take them to Jupiter’s moon Ganymede to a fictional comet, then on to Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, and then to a series of massive space battles. And if you are not familiar with Smith’s fiction, this novel is a good example of the best (and worst) aspects of his work. Spacehounds of IPC first appeared in the magazine Amazing Stories in 1931, and was published in book form by Fantasy Press in 1947. The copy of Spacehounds of IPC I used for this review is a paperback reissue from Pyramid books, a third printing from December 1973. The cover is definitely a product of the ’70s, with a white cover and a trippy shadowed geometric sans-serif font, but a fairly generic cover painting of a spaceship near a generic looking rocky body in space. The uncredited painting lacks the energy of the impressionistic paintings by Jack Gaughan that graced the covers of most of Pyramid’s other Doc Smith reprints. According to his biography on Wikipedia, Smith was very pleased with Spacehounds of IPC, hoped it would be the start of a series, and thought it was one of his best works, grounded in real science, not in pseudo-science. But readers reportedly did not like the fact that the action in the novel was contained within our solar system, and when Harry Bates, editor of Astounding, made a lucrative offer to Smith to write an adventure with less science and more action, Smith turned in Triplanetary, and the lurid but exciting Lensman series was born (although, due to financial issues, Triplanetary ended up being published in Amazing, and not Astounding). About the Author Edward Elmer Smith (1890-1965), often referred to as the “Father of Space Opera,” wrote under the pen name E.E. “Doc” Smith. I included a complete biography in my review of Triplanetary. Doc Smith’s first book was The Skylark of Space, which eventually lead to a series that included Skylark Three, Skylark of Valeron, and Skylark DuQuesne. Doc Smith is best known for his epic Lensman series, which including Triplanetary, First Lensman, Galactic Patrol, Gray Lensman, Second Stage Lensmen, Children of the Lens, and Masters of the Vortex. Hits and Misses After discovering that Smith felt Spacehounds of IPC was his most realistic work, I decided it would be worth a read. While I enjoyed his other books, from my perspective a little more realism would be a welcome change. But I was surprised when the back cover described a space liner being cut to pieces by “lethal scissors of light,” and the front piece describing a young woman being overcome by the perfume of a gigantic malevolent flower, and in danger of being “devoured alive!” And as I started reading the book, I realized that being more realistic than the Lensman and Skylark series still left a lot of room for pulpy excess. There is a lot of questionable science here, but also some accurate predictions, and it is interesting to examine Smith’s hits and misses. The first thing a reader will notice is a number of anachronisms in the language Smith uses. In this narrative, “computers” are people who do math, not the “calculating machines” they use for the math. We now think of “dirigibles” as powered lighter-than-air craft, but the term is short for dirigible airship, with dirigible being a term for “steerable.” So, when Smith uses the term dirigible for a directional antenna or weapon, he is talking about it being aimed, not flying through the air. And it turns out to be far easier (in reality) to communicate across space than Smith and his contemporaries thought it would be. Almost no one still uses Morse Code to communicate, as the characters in the book do. (The term “fist,” by the way, refers to the individual accent or rhythm someone has when tapping a telegraph key, kind of like an accent when speaking, something I remember from my own days at sea many years ago.) One thing that does stand out is the goofy slang characters use when bantering with each other, something I will point out is not an anachronism, but seems to be Smith’s idea of wit. To the best of my knowledge, even back in the early 20th century, people didn’t talk like that. The space travel Smith describes is based on early ideas of the power of electricity, many of which did not pan out in the real world. Smith’s ships have massive storage batteries called accumulators, which are charged by power beamed from power plants on Earth, which has limited human travel to the inner system. Smith posits that electricity can be used not just to generate magnetic fields, but also to power pressor and tractor beams that can push and pull ships through the ether (and “ether” does not seem to be just a figure of speech here). The ships are armored, as the threat of meteorites was overestimated by scientists of the day. The force beams and force fields Smith describes being used in combat remain figments of imagination. Smith did not stick with the consensus of science fiction authors in his day regarding the planets and moons of our solar system. His most accurate predictions were in the gravity of each body. He was more pessimistic about Mars and Venus than many of his contemporaries, seeing both planets as being uninhabitable by humans without protective gear. On the other hand, he saw Ganymede as having a shirtsleeve environment, with a thinner atmosphere whose higher oxygen content made it breathable. Jupiter was seen as cloudy like Venus. Saturn was also seen as a shirtsleeve environment for humans, with only a hint of sulfur compounds in the atmosphere making it unpleasant. Smith’s most realistic prediction was for Titan, which he imagined as cold enough that ice would be a building material, and hydrocarbon-based gasses would be liquids. And his description of a comet was not too far off from current science. Smith saw a solar system filled with living creatures, with human-like creatures as the apex of creation. He portrayed scientists as arguing whether this was due to common ancestry, or parallel evolution, a theory common at the time that evolution would produce similar results regardless of location. He depicted his Venusians, Martians, and inhabitants of the Jovian moons as having generally human characteristics. His six-limbed Hexans were designed to be an unsympathetic threat, and he invented some other interesting alien beings. His most interesting human creatures were the Titanians, who were adapted to extremely cold conditions, and whose chemical composition was driven by those cold temperatures, but who were ironically the most empathetic of the intelligent creatures of the solar system. In terms of social predictions, Smith was not terribly imaginative. The story is dominated by male characters, although there is a female protagonist who is plucky and resourceful, not just there to be a love interest. He did state in passing that his Inter-Planetary Corporation had discovered how to construct atomic bombs, and used that knowledge to bring peace to the Earth, a statement that raises more questions with me than it answers. All in all, while much of the scientific extrapolation used by Smith has turned out to be rather preposterous, he does a good job of playing consistently with the rules he had established within the story. This rigor and attention to detail did make the narrative more compelling, as the characters worked to find scientific solutions to the various challenges they faced. Spacehounds of IPC Noted computer Doctor Percival “Steve” Stevens boards Inter-Planetary Vessel (IPV) Arcturus, a venerable passenger vessel, for what should be a routine voyage. Vessels have been having difficulties with navigation, and he soon finds the problem lies in the guidance given by space stations that are sloppy about keeping their positions. He is then asked to give a tour of the vessel to Nadia Newton, daughter of the head of the Inter-Planetary Corporation, or IPC. Expecting to meet with a child, he is delighted to find she is a beautiful young woman. While Nadia is extremely capable and intelligent, her lack of scientific knowledge gives Smith a chance to explain to her (and also to the readers) how the space vessels in the story work. But while they are touring engineering spaces, Arcturus comes under attack from mysterious aliens, whose force beams slice the vessel into chunks, which the aliens take into tow using tractor beams (the first time the term “tractor beam” was used in science fiction). Fortunately for Steve and Nadia, the section they are in contains a number of lifeboats and quite a bit of useful machinery. Steve sets out to cobble together the systems they have available into a working spaceship, which they dub the Forlorn Hope. As the alien ship nears the moon Ganymede, they are able to trigger explosions in the wreckage that cover their escape, and they land on the moon, finding a rocky chasm near a waterfall to use as a hiding place. Smith loved to describe scientists at work, and what follows is one of the most interesting parts of the book for me, as Steve works to build a hydroelectric generator in the waterfall, along with a power transmitter that can charge the accumulators of their ship and allow them to call for help, and possibly even escape. This is the work of many months, as Steve often not only has to construct the various devices, but also fabricate the tools he needs for those tasks. Nadia works to keep the two of them clothed and fed, which is no small task, as it involves hunting local wildlife with a homemade bow and arrow. Fortunately, the two of them are physically fit (he was a champion diver, and she a champion golfer), and their struggle to survive makes them even tougher. Steve has a crisis in confidence, and confesses he has fallen in love with Nadia, and his need to keep her safe is weighing on him. Nadia returns that affection, and they decide to become engaged, with a wedding once they return to civilization. That might seem strangely chaste to modern readers, but editors of the time frowned upon depictions of extramarital sex, even among castaways. One day, Nadia shoots an animal she has not yet encountered, a six-limbed red creature (later dubbed a Hexan), and having only wounded it, follows it far from their camp. She finally kills it, but falls victim to a carnivorous and ambulatory plant that carries her away. Steve, realizing she has been gone for a while, dons a spacesuit he has reinforced with armor, and goes out with bow, sword and dirk to find her. He catches up with the malevolent plant, and slays it in an epic and brutal fight. They kill another of the Hexans as they return to their camp. Steve needs heavier metals than are available on Ganymede to build a transmitter, and decides they should try to fly to a comet that should be in the vicinity of Jupiter. But while they are preparing to leave, they are attacked by more Hexans, who turn out to be a primitive intelligent species. That gives Steve another chance to use his armored suit and sword, backed up by Nadia’s archery skills. They slaughter the attackers, and as they take off for their comet, pause in midair to blast away even more Hexans (Smith’s tendency to slaughter enemies without regret shows even in this early work). While Steve and Nadia are gathering what they need from the comet, another Jovian vessel attacks them, and starts chopping up their already jury-rigged ship. But in the nick of time, they are rescued by strange humans from Saturn’s moon Titan, who have been clashing with the Jovians. The Titanians tow them to their moon, and repair their ship. Our heroes are able to help the Titanians fix one of their powerplants, built on Saturn, an environment hellishly hot for the Titanians, but comfortable for the Terrans. They fly their rejuvenated Forlorn Hope back to Ganymede, finish their transmitter, and call for help, a call soon answered by Steve’s fellow computers on the science vessel IPV Sirius. And those scientists, who include the volatile Brandon and the shy Westfall, immediately begin working on not only duplicating the devices and weapons of the Jovians, but also countermeasures. Smith then shifts the viewpoint to the previously unknown human inhabitants of the Jovian moons, driven underground by the intelligent and malevolent Hexans of Jupiter. These Hexans are cousins to the savage Hexans that Steve and Nadia encountered on Ganymede, and are irredeemably hostile and evil, giving Smith’s protagonists a foe they can exterminate without guilt. The Jovian humans have found and rescued the remaining survivors from IPV Arcturus. And we are also introduced to Vorkulians, a race of flying reptiles who are at perpetual war with Jupiter’s Hexans. Soon, there is an open war between all factions for domination of the Jupiter system. This clash is interesting because it is not just mindless combat; instead, it is a struggle of scientific knowledge, and advances in technology, a theme that Smith addresses with gusto. While Steve and Nadia are almost completely set to the side in this struggle, it still brings the book to an entertaining conclusion. Final Thoughts Spacehounds of IPC is often overlooked by those who study the work of Doc Smith, but I think it is my favorite of his books. It stands alone, without a need for prequels or sequels. It is an engaging adventure with compelling characters, and interesting (although dated) scientific extrapolation. If you haven’t read any of Smith’s books, and are curious about early science fiction and space opera, this is certainly an entertaining starting point. And now it’s your turn to chime in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this book, on Smith’s other work, or on the topic of space opera in general.[end-mark] The post Touring the Solar System: <i>Spacehounds of IPC</i> by E.E. “Doc” Smith appeared first on Reactor.

The Left Is Hallucinating

“The Sisterhood Did Not Stand Up”: 45% of Women Voted for Trump

Scientists from the Institute of Fundamental Physics in Madrid, Spain, recently observed the Taurus Molecular Cloud—a nearby region where new stars are forming—using the Yebes telescope. They identified two nitrile-containing molecules, malononitrile and maleonitrile, whose presence could shed light on the chemical processes that may have led to the origin of life in the universe, as reported by Space. The Taurus Molecular Cloud is an interstellar gas and dust cloud, and the discovery of these nitriles highlights that complex chemical reactions are happening in space, potentially mirroring those that gave rise to life on Earth. According to researchers, nitriles are crucial in the prebiotic synthesis of purines and pyrimidines, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, making this finding significant for understanding life’s chemical origins. Typically, nitriles in space contain carbon-nitrogen triple bonds, which are highly stable. However, interstellar chemistry differs from that on Earth. In space, reaction outcomes are often governed by speed or probability rather than stability, favoring reactions that produce easily formed, resilient compounds like nitriles. This abundance and resilience of nitriles support the idea that they could have played a role in early prebiotic chemistry. To understand the formation of these molecules, the team explored possible interstellar reactions that could create nitriles. Data analysis revealed that malononitrile and maleonitrile are significantly less abundant than similar molecules containing a carbon-carbon triple bond. Reactive carbon radicals—often found in these interstellar clouds—are more prevalent than nitrile radicals, suggesting that carbon-based molecules form more readily than nitrile-based ones. The team notes that breaking the stable carbon-carbon triple bond is challenging, which could explain the prevalence of hydrocarbons in the Taurus Molecular Cloud. Despite extensive simulations, the researchers were unable to identify reactions that could easily form nitriles under the cold conditions of interstellar space. They believe that uncovering these processes will require further study of newly discovered reactions in interstellar chemistry. This research contributes to our expanding understanding of life’s origins, potentially guiding future discoveries of life beyond Earth. The post Molecules Found in Space Could Reveal the Secret to Life’s Origins appeared first on Anomalien.com.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has launched a new experiment focused on collisions of heavy ions rather than the usual protons. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) shared the details of this groundbreaking study, which started at 11:13 a.m. on November 6 and will last for about three weeks. This experiment aims to generate vast amounts of data for physicists to analyze, hoping to reveal insights into the Universe’s earliest moments. Unlike typical experiments with protons, this time scientists are observing collisions of lead ions, which contain 208 nucleons (82 protons and 126 neutrons). These ions are accelerated to energies of 5.36 TeV per nucleon pair, creating conditions similar to those just after the Big Bang. The preparation for this experiment involved significant upgrades to the equipment. For instance, the CMS detector’s data collection rate was increased from 20 to 30 gigabytes per second, and the ATLAS detector was made more sensitive to detect ultra-peripheral collisions—when heavy ions pass close without colliding head-on. The ALICE detector, specifically designed for heavy-ion measurements, was also enhanced to gather double the data it could in previous experiments. According to ALICE spokesman Marco van Leeuwen, scientists are “looking forward to the large data sample from this experiment,” as it should allow for the first direct measurement of the temperature of the quark-gluon plasma and enable precise study of its properties. Quark-gluon plasma is a unique, high-energy state of matter that existed in the very early Universe, just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In this state, protons and neutrons break down into a “primordial soup” of their fundamental components—quarks and gluons. By recreating this plasma through heavy-ion collisions, scientists hope to understand the behavior of matter under extreme conditions similar to those that shaped the early Universe. The post New Large Hadron Collider Experiment to Reveal the Universe’s Birth appeared first on Anomalien.com.

A study from the University of Jyväskylä shows that emotional connections between dogs and their owners affect both heart rate variability and physical activity levels, indicating a deep physiological bond similar to that between humans. Heart rate variability, or the time interval differences between heartbeats, reveals the state of the autonomic nervous system. Higher variability signifies relaxation, while lower variability suggests stress. The study found that when dog owners displayed high heart rate variability, their dogs often showed similar levels, and both their activity levels aligned during shared tasks like play. During relaxed, unstructured times, heart rate variability between owners and dogs was especially synchronized, suggesting that when neither partner is focused on external activities, they naturally tune into each other’s emotional state. This connection likely reflects emotional synchrony rather than physical activity alone, as the strongest variability links were observed in resting periods, rather than active play. The study also revealed that a dog’s heart rate variability may be linked to the owner’s temperament. For instance, dogs with owners who had high negative affectivity, a trait involving a tendency toward worry, often displayed higher heart rate variability. These owners’ strong bonds with their dogs could contribute to a heightened sense of safety in their pets. Surprisingly, the dogs influenced their owners as well. The owner’s heart rate variability was better explained by the dog’s variability than by other factors, like the owner’s own activity level or body mass index. This mutual influence underscores the bidirectional nature of the bond, which goes beyond what was previously understood. The research, funded by the Research Council of Finland and the Agria & Svenska Kennelklubben Research Fund, involved 30 dog-owner pairs, mainly breeds like sheepdogs and retrievers, known for their sensitivity to human cues. Study leader Miiamaaria Kujala notes that examining both the dog’s and owner’s heart rate and activity simultaneously offered a unique view into cross-species interaction, building on prior studies by providing a more complete picture of emotional synchronization between humans and their pets. This research highlights that the emotional bonds that reinforce human attachments also strengthen connections between dogs and their owners. Such insights deepen our understanding of cross-species relationships and underline the significant role emotional synchronization plays in bonding across species. The post Unexplained Emotional Bonds Between Dogs and Humans Do Really Exist appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Friday’s PBS News Hour didn’t take Donald Trump’s re-election well, continuing to blame "racism and sexism" for the abject failure of Americans to elevate first Hillary Clinton and now Kamala Harris to the highest office, picking instead the sexist male ogre Donald Trump (who, incidentally, just appointed the first female chief of staff in presidential history). Even with two guests, there was no departure from the show's monotone liberalism, no actual debate on this ostensibly objective, taxpayer-funded newscast.     Far-left reporter Errin Haines of The 19th (founded to “empower…women, women of color and the LGBTQ+ community”) first agreed with PBS host Amna Nawaz regarding the perfidies of the white women voters who repeated their 2016 error by refusing to vote in lockstep for the female candidate. NAWAZ: For the second time in eight years, a woman ran for president and lost to the same man. Despite strong support among women of color, Vice President Kamala Harris lost ground with nearly every other demographic group compared to Joe Biden in 2020. A number of factors separate Hillary Clinton's run from Harris's, and a number of factors went into Donald Trump's win. But, once again, the question is being asked: Is America ready for a woman in the White House?...There's a number of factors at play, we know, the economy, a truncated campaign, frustration with the incumbent. But what do you take away from what we saw with voters in terms of how much gender played a role, that there was a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket? HAINES: Well, you know, I wrote about how this election, how elections are not just about either of the candidates, but really about who we are as a country. And, again, what do we know about who we are as a country this year?That America is still not yet ready to elect a woman to lead our country…. Haines is a familiar liberal journalistic face on the News Hour, constantly rambling about “lived experience” and crying racism and sexism. In August 2023, she appeared to hurl the disgusting claim that Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis was “at least partly responsible” for a racist murderer who killed three blacks in Jacksonville. A Nawaz question about the 53 percent of white women who voted for Trump went Rutgers University Professor Kelly Dittmar, sho smeared her fellow white women from the opposite angle -- for her, it was less about women opposing a woman president (which Dittmar offered the useful reminder that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016), but more about them voting for an awful man like Trump: But to really understand both white women's voting behavior and voting behavior across the board is to look at, what are the racism and sexism in our electorate that is allowing us to continually vote for somebody who's proven that he is misogynist in both his own personal behavior, but also in his policy priorities, has tapped into racial resentment within our communities, and that these things aren't disqualifying? And for white women, in particular, we have seen time and again, it's not disqualifying enough in part because they have a racial privilege that is being protected by this brand of politics. Nawaz doubled down with an incredibly leading question to Haines: "What role did you see that both racism and sexism that we know are still very real animating forces in America played in this election?" Haines responded by complaining that "white women choosing between their race and their gender" had made the wrong choice. The segment wrapped with Nawaz and Dittmar expressing their grave disappoint with the American populace for its "inability...to see women as leaders." Dittmar even stooped to the comical low of defending transgenderism (click "expand"): NAWAZ: Is it reluctance that you see or an inability, largely, among the general population to see women as leaders? DITTMAR: Yes, I think, as you know, we have made progress. I think it's a little bit of both, but it's also some backlash. You know, Susan Faludi wrote a book called Backlash that we can tap into again and look at in this election and in how Donald Trump waged his campaign, which was in fact taking that progress that you have pointed to and reminding a subset of voters that this is somehow threatening, right? And that's true along lines of race as well. Since the day Donald Trump began campaigning, he tapped into white male grievance politics, saying, for example, you know, society is becoming too soft and feminine. That's something his supporters are more likely to believe, based on Public Religion Research Institute data, or men are being punished just for being men, gender is a binary, and we shouldn't move beyond that. So, we saw that in the anti-trans rhetoric throughout the campaign for Donald Trump and other Republicans down the ballot. And so, while we see these gains, we have to remember that progress is not inevitable. It takes the effort and — and momentum from everybody, including groups like white women, to push back against those who are saying that this progress is somehow bad and threatening to their own communities. This segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 11/08/24 7:28:13 p.m. Eastern AMNA NAWAZ: For the second time in eight years, a woman ran for president and lost to the same man. Despite strong support among women of color, Vice President Kamala Harris lost ground with nearly every other demographic group compared to Joe Biden in 2020. A number of factors separate Hillary Clinton's run from Harris's, and a number of factors went into Donald Trump's win. But, once again, the question is being asked: Is America ready for a woman in the White House? Errin Haines editor-at-large for The 19th News, and Kelly Dittmar is with the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Welcome to you both. And, Errin, I will start with you. There's a number of factors at play, we know, the economy, a truncated campaign, frustration with the incumbent. But what do you take away from what we saw with voters in terms of how much gender played a role, that there was a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket? ERRIN HAINES: Well, you know, I wrote about how this election, how elections are not just about either of the candidates, but really about who we are as a country. And, again, what do we know about who we are as a country this year? That America is still not yet ready to elect a woman to lead our country. The issue of gender, not necessarily something that Vice President Kamala Harris was emphasizing, but it was absolutely looming over this race. And — and when you think about, you know, American voters really prioritizing the economy, immigration, maybe not seeing a woman as — as the person that embodied the characteristics of strength or power around those issues, I think that this was absolutely an election that was gendered. We definitely saw former President Trump coming back into the White House on a message of his particular brand of masculinity. I think that we cannot have a conversation about this election without having a conversation about the role — the ongoing role of gender in our politics and continuing to ask the question, what is it going to take for a woman — for this country to ever elect a woman president? NAWAZ: Kelly, pick up on that point that Errin made about Trump's campaign, which was clearly geared to appeal towards men. And he did very well with them. He won some 54 percent of the male vote. But it was one group in particular, white women, which is the single largest voting bloc at some 40 percent of the electorate, who did help propel him to victory, some 53 percent of white women voting for him. What did you see in that? What fueled that vote? CENTER FOR AMERICAN WOMEN AND POLITICS's KELLY DITTMAR: We need to kind of shift away from the question of, is America ready for a woman? I mean, the majority of women voted — or majority of voters voted for a woman in 2016. But to really understand both white women's voting behavior and voting behavior across the board is to look at, what are the racism and sexism in our electorate that is allowing us to continually vote for somebody who's proven that he is misogynist in both his own personal behavior, but also in his policy priorities, has tapped into racial resentment within our communities, and that these things aren't disqualifying? And for white women, in particular, we have seen time and again, it's not disqualifying enough in part because they have a racial privilege that is being protected by this brand of politics. And we're going to have to grapple with that, I think, continually to get to the point not only where we can elect a woman, but where we can elect candidates wo are trying to move us forward when it comes to racial and ethnic inclusion, gender progress, and — and gender equity. NAWAZ: And, Errin, I know you have reported on this and written on this extensively. This is the second time there's been a woman at the top of the ticket, but the only first time that there's been a Black woman at the top of the ticket. What role did you see that both racism and sexism that we know are still very real animating forces in America played in this election? HAINES: I think they definitely played a role. But I do want to talk about, I mean, the 92 percent of Black women that showed up to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris, how excited and energized they were about her unprecedented campaign, how hard that they worked to try to get her elected. I mean, Black women have long been regarded as the backbone of the Democratic Party. And so to see somebody who shared their lived experience at the top of the ticket felt for a lot of the Black women that I talked to, a lot of the voters, a lot of the organizers, a lot of the longtime kind of political folks that have been around in the Democratic Party, to see that, for them really represented kind of a return on their investment, I mean, their investment being their voting loyalty over so many years to the Democratic Party. And so, circling back with a lot of those same Black women, you know, where they are right now is that they are feeling abandoned by a party that they have supported so heavily and so loyally for so long, and really wondering what it is, you know, about — about Black women that other groups somehow are not necessarily able to stand with, and white women, in particular because I think that we saw, when Vice President Harris became the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, there were some white women who were publicly kind of reckoning with 2016. White women did not in the majority support Hillary Clinton then, somebody who shared their lived experience, and wondering if they were going to make a different choice this time around and stand with Black women and other Democrats in voting for Kamala Harris, but that did not end up being the case. And you have to ask, how much of that — I mean, we know the history of white women and what they have chosen to do with suffrage since they got it, they first got it in 1920, and, frankly, at the expense of so many Black women suffragists who also stood shoulder to shoulder with them, but were then thrown under the bus when the 19th Amendment was passed more than a century ago. I think that that history absolutely looms over this election for so many Black women. You know, when it came down to white women choosing between their race and their gender, I think we see how that played out. NAWAZ: Kelly, it is worth taking a look at the last 50 years in the U.S. Yes, gender equity has made a lot of progress, right? But facts are still facts. Women are still paid some 84 cents on the dollar compared to men. Women make up less than 12 percent of C-suite roles. Women are half the U.S. population. They only make up less than a third of Congress. Is it reluctance that you see or an inability, largely, among the general population to see women as leaders? DITTMAR: Yes, I think, as you know, we have made progress. I think it's a little bit of both, but it's also some backlash. You know, Susan Faludi wrote a book called Backlash that we can tap into again and look at in this election and in how Donald Trump waged his campaign, which was in fact taking that progress that you have pointed to and reminding a subset of voters that this is somehow threatening, right? And that's true along lines of race as well. Since the day Donald Trump began campaigning, he tapped into white male grievance politics, saying, for example, you know, society is becoming too soft and feminine. That's something his supporters are more likely to believe, based on Public Religion Research Institute data, or men are being punished just for being men, gender is a binary, and we shouldn't move beyond that. So, we saw that in the anti-trans rhetoric throughout the campaign for Donald Trump and other Republicans down the ballot. And so, while we see these gains, we have to remember that progress is not inevitable. It takes the effort and — and momentum from everybody, including groups like white women, to push back against those who are saying that this progress is somehow bad and threatening to their own communities.

Donald Trump's presidential victory last week has instilled a much-needed sense of hope among border and immigration agents.Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers told Fox News Digital that morale within the agencies has completely turned around since Trump won. They also applauded the president-elect's decision to name Tom Homan as the incoming "border czar," noting that he is widely respected among agents. 'There are a lot of agents that had originally said that they would retire if President Trump did not win. ...They're going to hold back on their retirement because they want to serve under this administration again.'A Massachusetts ICE officer told the news outlet, "It's a total 180. Troops are finally feeling like the sun is coming out after a very long storm.""People are fired up to have support," the ICE officer continued. "It's amazing because we all became so numb. I don't think we realized how bad until we finally have hope again. Everyone is so happy about Homan's return."A New York ICE officer stated that morale within the law enforcement agency is "super high, especially with the Homan news, too."An Arizona Border Patrol agent told Fox News Digital that they are now "ecstatic to go to work," adding that morale within the CBP is "even higher than the first time he [Trump] won."A senior ICE official told the news outlet, "I feel that people know now they will get to do the work they signed up to do and that they want to do.""They know they can get the bad guys now. Public safety threats, national security threats, gang members, here we come," the official said.National Border Patrol Council President Paul Perez also confirmed the uptick in agents' enthusiasm, stating that "morale is through the roof.""We've received hundreds of calls, texts, emails just saying how happy the agents are," Perez stated.Just last month, several CBP agents warned about a potential staffing crisis in the event that Vice President Kamala Harris won the November presidential election, Blaze News previously reported. They told the New York Post that many officers would likely opt to retire, with one agent calling the last four years under the Biden-Harris administration's leadership "hell."One Border Patrol officer told the Post, "Lots of guys who can retire will go. If Trump wins, they'll stay."Perez explained that many of the agents who had planned to retire have decided to remain since Trump's win.He said, "There are a lot of agents that had originally said that they would retire if President Trump did not win. And now those same agents are saying they're going to hold back on their retirement because they want to serve under this administration again, because they know exactly how it was during this first administration, and they know this one's going to be even better."A Texas border agent repeated similar remarks to Fox News Digital, stating, "People who were going to retire are not and everyone is happy."However, a California Border Patrol officer told the news outlet that agents are "hopeful but the give-ups are still trickling in.""Nothing will change until Tom Homan takes the leash off us," the officer remarked.Trump has vowed to "strengthen ICE" by "increas[ing] penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstat[ing] 'Remain in Mexico' and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration by historic lows in President Trump's first term."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stand-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe refused to apologize for jokes he made about Puerto Rico and many others in his routine at a Donald Trump rally.Hinchcliffe, who made countless headlines after joking about Puerto Rico being an "island of garbage" at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally late last month, addressed the media outrage in a video posted on Monday.An episode of Hinchcliffe's incredibly popular podcast "Kill Tony" was filmed the night after his controversial pre-election appearance. The comedian prefaced it with comments about the backlash.Hinchcliffe explained that the premise for his rally joke had a basis in reality."I don't know if you guys know this. In my speech on free speech, I referenced Puerto Rico, which currently has a landfill problem in which all of their landfills are filled to the brim. I guess I'm the only person that knew about this, unfortunately."Hinchcliffe is right. Well before he made the remarks, environmental websites were bringing up the issue of the island's landfill space, saying the country would soon be at capacity for garbage.The latest piece came from the St. Kitts and Nevis Observer, which said that the comedian's jokes aside, the island's infrastructure is under considerable strain, as many of its landfills are over capacity.'That's what I do. I go hard, and that's never going to change.'Hinchcliffe made it clear that his joke was indeed just a joke and added that he loves Puerto Ricans and believes them to be "very smart people.""They're street-smart, and they're smart enough to know when they're being used as political fodder, and right now that is happening," Hinchcliffe said at the time.Taking a page out of UFC legend Conor McGregor's book, Hinchcliffe added that he wanted to apologize to "nobody.""I apologize to absolutely nobody. Not to the Puerto Ricans, not to the whites, not to the blacks, not to the Palestinians, not to the Jews, and not to my own mother, who I made fun of during the set," the comedian said. Your browser does not support the video tag. Footage by Alex Wong/Getty Images Hinchcliffe said he noticed there were no headlines regarding his jokes about his own mother but later admitted that maybe the presidential venue wasn't the best place to deliver his material.However, the 40-year-old said he doesn't plan on easing up with his jokes."That's what I do. I go hard, and that's never going to change."After the fallout from the rally, several prominent personalities defended Trump and the jokes. Armin Mizani, the mayor of Keller, Texas, who is Puerto Rican, referred to the ordeal as simply a "bad joke by a comedian" that shouldn't overshadow what Trump could do for Americans.Puerto Rican NFL player Jon Feliciano said, "The only Puerto Ricans that are mad about Tony Hinchcliffe's joke, are mad because it helps push their agenda." — (@) Even left-wing Comedy Central host Jon Stewart defended Hinchcliffe, showing that comedy can be bipartisan."Obviously, in retrospect, having a roast comedian come to a political rally a week before Election Day and roasting a key demographic ... probably not the best decision by the campaign politically, but to be fair, the guy's just really doing what he does," Stewart explained."I find that guy very funny. I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you," he told his audience.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Harris booster Lenard McKelvey — the radio personality who calls himself "Charlamagne tha God" — revealed on the Monday episode of "The Breakfast Club" radio show that the left need indulge transvestites' delusions only if they are political allies. In the show's "Donkey of the Day" segment, McKelvey focused his ire on male former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner over his decision to vote for President-elect Donald Trump. "Now, if there's one thing this election taught me, is people really do vote their interest, and their interest is not attached to their identity," said McKelvey. The woke co-host alluded to Trump's popularity among a voter bloc Democrats have long taken for granted: Hispanics. According to CNN exit polls, 46% of all Hispanics and 55% of Hispanic men voted for Trump. Conflating Hispanic-Americans with illegal aliens, McKelvey insinuated that Latino voters who voted for Trump did so at the risk of deportation. "Okay, most Latino men say they chose Trump because of economy and jobs. Never mind the fact, okay, that Grandma may get sent back to her place of origin," said McKelvey. After lumping law-abiding Hispanic-Americans in with foreign nationals who have flouted U.S. immigration laws, McKelvey suggested that Jenner similarly voted against his supposed identity. 'I can't stop seeing Caitlyn as a rich, white male.' "That is also how I feel about Caitlyn, because Caitlyn is trans, but she is a huge Donald Trump supporter," said the co-host. "She said not only does she support Trump, she wants to work in his administration. Okay?" continued McKelvey. "Caitlyn posted a picture of herself, Trump, his granddaughter Kai, and Elon Musk with the caption, 'Hope is back in America. These two men will single-handedly save western civilization and that starts with a strong United States of America. I am here and at your service and forever indebted to your sacrifice for this country. Let's Make America Great Again!'" McKelvey joked that Jenner "wants his next gender reassignment surgery sponsored by SpaceX" and "wants his testicles replaced for Teslas." After transitioning from using female pronouns to male pronouns in reference to Jenner, McKelvey insinuated that the incoming Trump administration will be hostile to transvestites like the former athlete. Trump vowed in February 2023 to "stop the chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth because no serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender." To this end, Trump indicated that he will: undo the Biden-Harris administration's "cruel policies on so-called 'gender-affirming care'"; bar federal agencies from promoting the concept of gender transition; impress upon Congress the need to defund efforts to promote or subsidize sex changes; ask lawmakers to pass legislation establishing that the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female; help pass a law saving children from sex-change mutilation in all 50 states; and have his Department of Justice investigate the pharmaceutical industry and various hospitals to determine whether they "deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects of sex transitions in order to get rich." The Republican president's agenda does not appear to contain anything that might interfere with Jenner's lifestyle or rights as an American. Nevertheless, McKelvey suggested, "Caitlyn Jenner, as a transgender you just look like a devil-damned fool glazing Trump and Elon the way you are after hearing stuff like that." The woke co-host suggested his was not wholly an identitarian mindset, but suggested it still did not make sense to him for a transvestite to "support someone that is absolutely trying to erase your existence." McKelvey, his rant far from finished, revealed that by failing to vote for Kamala Harris, Jenner magically became a white man again. "At the end of the day, Caitlyn, you can change the top layer, but you was who you was before you got here, and what you are is a rich, white male," said the woke co-host. "And that's why I keep saying 'him' when I shouldn't be, but I can't stop seeing Caitlyn as a rich, white male, and that identity, pun intended, trumps all." 'Democrats and so-called "allies" are just hypocritical scum.' After McKelvey committed the supposed cardinal offense of what leftists call "misgendering," "The Breakfast Club" played an advertisement for QuickBooks, accounting software owned by the DEI-captive company Intuit, which is apparently big on LGBT activism. Other leftists such as Kyle Kulinski have signaled agreement with McKelvey's suggestion that leftist speech codes apply only when discussing cross-dressers who vote Democrat. Meanwhile, Jenner shared a message from YouTuber David Freiheit, known under his online pseudonym "Viva Frei, who wrote, "You know what's funny: @Caitlyn_Jenner wouldn't mind being 'misgendered' because Caitlyn is not a virtue-signalling snowflake. And even Caitlyn doesn't believe that boys should be allowed to compete in girls sports because Caitlyn is not a delusional idiot."But thank you for confirming that Democrats and so-called 'allies' are just hypocritical scum who only defend minorities when they can exploit them for political profit @KyleKulinski," added Freiheit. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!