Disney princesses have become such an ingrained part of our collective conscious that most of us can rattle off the names Cinderella, Snow White, Jasmine, Belle, Tiana, Ariel, Moana, Mulan, Rapunzel and so on without having to think too hard about it. Disney princes, however, are another story. There's the classic Prince Charming, of course. Aladdin is hard to forget, since the story is literally named after him. Beast doesn't have a name, and beyond that, most Disney princes just don't stick in people's minds.Flynn Rider from "Tangled," however, might be the exception. There's something about Flynn Rider that has made him a Disney fan favorite, and a behind-the-scenes video explains one possible reason why: He was designed by a room full of women. First, here's a reminder of Flynn's character for those who haven't seen "Tangled" in a while:"Tangled" directors Byron Howard and Nathan Greno shared in a Q & A what they were thinking in the process of creating Flynn.“Flynn’s character, from the get-go, had to be a charmer,” Howard said. “He had to be this charming kind of swashbuckling, amazing action guy who you had to love from square one…We always kind of compare him to characters like Indiana Jones, who have confidence about them but they’re human at the same time. Because you have to relate to these guys. They can’t just be Superman.”Greno added that Flynn is one of the funniest characters Disney has created. “He’s this really smart, witty guy. He’s an action hero, he’s also very handsome." Flynn's handsomeness ended up being highly curated. Howard and Greno shared that after the animators had come up with hundreds of mockups of potential Flynns, they invited the women from around the animation studios to come and weigh in on the sketches, as well as images of leading Hollywood men over the years, to determine what features would make Flynn the most attractive.This "hot man meeting" yielded a lot of strong opinions, which Howard said was "tough." "The hot man meeting was hard to go to, for us," said Greno, "because everyone had opinions on what works and what doesn't work. And occasionally things would come up that don't work, and those were things that, you know, we have." Watch the women in action: @ashley_tropea Never forget The Hot Man Meeting #disney #tangled #flynnrider #animation #menwrittenbywomen #disneytangled #disneytiktok Designing a male hero based on what women actually find attractive vs. what men think women find attractive turned out to be a solid approach. It may be worth imagining what would happen if the idea were reversed—a group of men in a "hot woman meeting" to piece together the ideal woman would likely be received a bit differently—but the consensus in the comments was that the meeting achieved its intended goal. "This makes so much sense. Flynn Rider is elite." "And in the end, they nailed it.""My girls KNEW what they were talkin about.""And they did a FANTASTIC job.""Those women did amazing bc that man is FINEEEE.""THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE! I always felt like he was such a female gaze character I was surprised they nailed it…now I get why."Several commenters also wondered if that meeting was the genesis of the WANTED posters and Flynn's "They just can't get my nose right!" line in the film. Of course, as much love as Flynn got in the comments, some people disagreed that he was for sure the most attractive prince. There was a lot of appreciation for Prince Naveen from "The Princess and the Frog" (that voice), Li Shang from "Mulan" and Eric from "The Little Mermaid" in the comments. Thousands agreed, however, that Disney should have used an approach like this to create Beast when he turns into human form because that reveal left a lot to be desired. Ultimately, asking women what they actually find attractive instead of assuming or guessing led to the creation of one of the most beloved princes in the Disney lineup. If the goal is to have the female audience swooning over a character, it's definitely something for creators to consider when designing a leading man.

In the U.S. and Canada, it's common for cats to be purely indoor pets, rarely if ever going outside. Some cat owners build "catios" to give their feline friends a taste of the outdoors, others make use of harnesses and leashes (if the kitty will abide) and others provide contained, supervised outside time on occasion. Of course, containing a cat is no easy feat, so you have to have a pretty specific outdoor space to be able to do that successfully, which is exactly what the owners behind the "Adventures of Chai" TikTok channel have. With high hedges, a tall brick wall, and a large swath of grass, the backyard that Chai the cat gets to play in is perfectly suited to allow her inner-outdoor-cat frolic safely. And Chai's joy at getting in a little "garden time" is absolutely a must-see. The video is captioned, "POV: you let your indoor cat out and have never seen her happier." I mean, she does a complete backflip, for the love. And there are so many things to stalk, chase after and catch, you can tell she's having a blast. Watch: @theadventuresofchai It is so cute to watch?❤️ #kitten #cat #cattok #petsoftiktok #catlove #catlover #britishshorthair #cats #scottishfold #cutecat #funnycat Her sheer joy is 100% contagious. The video has more than 10 million likes and over 52 million views and people in the comments simply could not get over the flip."No one talking about the fact that the cat did a literal backflip?""She was so happy that she did a backflip ?""Did your cat just do a backflip ?""DID BABE JUST DO A BACKFLIP""THAT JUMP WAS SPECTACULAR""THE CAT FLIP SAYS IT ALL HAPPY TO BE ALIVE.❤❤❤❤"Of course, getting her back inside is not quite as enjoyable. "She loves to make us run for her," Chai's owner wrote on a video of Chai doing everything she could to avoid being brought back inside while her humans chased her around. @theadventuresofchai She loves to make us run for her? #kitten #cat #cattok #petsoftiktok #catlove #catlover #britishshorthair #cats #scottishfold #funnycat People the comments also debated the merits of keeping cats indoors vs. letting them roam outside. Some people feel strongly that cats are meant to live outdoors and that depriving them of that life is limiting their happiness. Others pointed out that being outdoors can be unsafe for domesticated cats and that cats themselves pose a threat to wildlife like birds. Most experts recommend keeping cats indoors with some safe outdoor access, but of course individual cat circumstances can vary. Outdoor cats tend to have shorter life spans and are at higher risk of disease and parasites as well as injury and fatality. Risks from humans and traffic are especially high in urban areas. However, out in the country, "barn cats" are often used to keep rodent populations down, protecting livestock from disease mice and rats can carry. In Chai's case, she appears to have the best of both worlds, being an indoor cat with a large outdoor area to play in with her humans' supervision. And boy, is she obviously happy about the arrangement.Find more Chai fun on @theadventuresofchai on TikTok.

"It is stupid to hold grudges." The post The moment Joan Baez’s resentment towards Bob Dylan “completely vanished” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In a book written about the landmark Marbury v. Madison case published 2009, Cliff Sloan and David McKean retold a story told by Chief Justice John Roberts about a Russian judge who was chatting with European colleagues at a law conference somewhere in Europe: When the Russian judge said that he would like to emulate the American judicial system, a European judge sneered, “Why did you come all the way here if you just want a can of Coke?” The Russian judge replied, “Actually, I do not like Coke. I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial institutions American.” If there remain judges in Putin’s Russia who can freely express admiration of anything American, they may not feel the same way today. Even some on the left feel anguish after what William Barr calls the “abomination” that took place in Judge Juan Merchan’s New York court. What destroys the judiciary’s reputation is its own collusion with forces seeking something other than the blindfolded justice that has been its proud ideal. If we will still abide by the rule of law, then this verdict, unreversed, will establish a principle in law. Worse, it might be the harbinger of a new era in which law is no longer ruled by principle but is suborned to the whims of those who make law on the fly to suit their politics. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that we are not yet at the full-blown nihilist stage, and our judges will continue to follow principles. The clearest precedent of this case is that the wall of restraint that characterized our country for more than two centuries is fallen and judges and prosecutors will be expected to intervene in elections on the flimsiest of pretenses, as long as the political atmosphere favors it. Those on the left might well dread that judicial systems of conservative cities or states might find a misdemeanor which an unrestrained legislature allows to be inflated into a felony. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Biden Distracts Americans. Turns on Israel With New Ceasefire Proposal) This is particularly true given the vagueness of what was so central to the New York case, as Merchan defined it in his wildly off-the-wall jury instructions. Lurking beneath the steaming pile of allegations was the idea that the execution of a non-disclosure agreement was felonious corruption. If principle still applies, the lawyers who execute non-disclosure agreements every day in order to protect their clients’ reputations will have to tremble that they may be participants in a felony if their client is unpopular enough with those in power. Suppose, to follow a line of reasoning Victor D. Hanson has mooted, that Idaho or Arkansas find a felony in the collusion of the press in scrubbing the record of Obama’s dinner with a Hamas supporter in the lead-up to the 2008 election, and their legislature writes a way to backdoor that felony through some peccadillo of the Obama campaign in that state. Or Biden and Blinken get shoe-horned into the same thing for their quashing of the Hunter Biden laptop story. The debate in which Biden said that the laptop accusation was a lie aired in every state. If this case establishes principle, then there is every reason to expect that Republicans will use it, too. As long as we are still dealing with principled law, the kind of law that drew the admiration of the Russian judge. The discrediting of law comes about through the abuses of those who are entrusted with the judicial power. When Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and expelled the Cherokees from their land, it did not discredit the judicial system. Same applies today, as Joe Biden brags about violating the SCOTUS decision that declared his cancelling of college loan debts as unconstitutional. The branches of government clash, and the American public has generally upheld the Supreme Court when it clashes with the Executive or the Legislatures. (The egregious Dred Scott  decision stands as the greatest exception; the Taney court had to be corrected by years of civil war.) What destroys the judiciary’s reputation is its own collusion with forces seeking something other than the blindfolded justice that has been its proud ideal. The Founders and the Framers were all too aware of how English law had been corrupted by tyrants and used solely to enforce political power. American lawyers’ training imbued the Common Law tradition, which under the banner of its most scholarly exponent, John Selden, carried forward the idea of constitutionality through civil war and dictatorship until it emerged triumphant. Selden suffered for his view that all are constrained by law and the reigning executives cannot dictate what justice must be. For his troubles, he was several times imprisoned by puppet judges who stayed in their office only as long as the king was pleased with their rulings. In his later years, Selden commented on judges ruefully to his dinner companions. One such comment: We see the pageants in Cheapside, the lions and the elephants, but we do not see the men that carry them; we see the judges look big, look like lions, but we do not see who moves them. He did not mean we don’t know who does. Another shorter remark on the judiciary: There could be no mischief done in the commonwealth without a judge. It was this savvy knowledge of the realities of corruption that enabled constitutionalists like Selden and our Framers to construct an ethos of impartiality and devotion to justice, knowing that their restraint was all that lay between the new republic and the same old tyranny that stained history. (READ MORE: Welcome to Venezuela, America) William Barr expressed confidence that the verdict Merchan shepherded through will be thrown out on appeal. Many others express the same confidence. For the sake of all that is good and admirable about our system of justice, may that be true. The post Judges Hold the Integrity of Our Legal System in Their Hands appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It is once again “Pride Month,” that special season set aside by leftists to worship sexual sin, degeneracy, debauchery, and depravity. “Pride Month” is, in many ways, the leftist’s holy season, the leftist’s diabolical inversion of such truly holy seasons as Advent and Lent in the Catholic calendar. As both Advent and Lent are a time of self-denial and self-mastery, of hopeful anticipation, of spiritual preparation for the birth and resurrection of God-made-man, “Pride Month” is an inversion of it: a time of self-indulgence and celebration of enslaving sin, of boastful “fulfillment,” of carnally declaring that man is his own god. Transgenderism becomes a sort of leftist baptism, necessitating being born again and taking on a new name. This assertion is not mere hyperbole. Leftism is indeed a religion, and the trappings which denote it as such have been foreseen in the past, particularly in the past hundred years or so. The Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen warned in 1947 that Satan will establish here on earth a sort of anti-Church, “which will be the ape of the Church because he, the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.” (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Bishop Robert Barron Praises Atheist Bill Maher. Why?) In 1907, the English author and priest Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson proffered a similar prophesy in his novel Lord of the World. In that dystopia, the world has been largely rid of all notion of religion, with the ruling classes of the West adopting both atheistic communism and Freemasonry. There are, of course, ceremonies, speeches, parades, and the like, but not formal worship. But the arrival of the Antichrist ushers in a new era: apostate priests are hired to devise a new liturgical worship, the worship of man as god. Sheen also spoke of the Antichrist as developing a new sort of religion, disguised under the principles of humanitarianism: He will write books on the new idea of God to suit the way people live … he will explain guilt away psychologically as inhibited eroticism, make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal; he will be so broadminded as to identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong, truth and error; he will spread the lie that men will never be better until they make society better … he will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital,” he will increase love for love and decrease love for persons; he will invoke religion to destroy religion; he will even speak of Christ and say that he was the greatest man who ever lived; his mission he will say will be to liberate men from the servitudes of superstition and Fascism, which he will never define. But in the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one; he will not believe in God. Such a characterization surely calls to mind the leftist cult vying today for dominance over the Western world. Those whose principles are diametrically opposed to the morality preached by Christianity for 2,000 years insist that they are devout lovers of God, that their perverted policies are in service of His Kingdom. (Joe Biden, for instance, never misses an opportunity to brand himself a “devout Catholic,” despite his decidedly anti-Catholic positions on nearly everything.) “Tolerance” has, indeed, become the leftists’ “sanctified” name for indifference to right and wrong, truth and error. “Pride Month” itself evinces this: an unnatural vice is lauded as a valid expression of love, even though it destroys both body and soul; the surgical mutilation of children’s healthy genitals is hailed as “lifesaving,” while efforts to protect children from such irreversible horrors are derided as bigoted. In fact, leftism has instituted its own set of unholy sacraments. The brilliant Dr. Peter Kreeft wrote, “Abortion is the Antichrist’s demonic parody of the eucharist. That’s why it uses the same holy words, ‘This is my body,’ with the blasphemous opposite meaning.” Every religion requires sacrifice: in the Catholic faith, the Eucharist is Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross — in leftism, the unborn innocents are slaughtered on the altar of antichrist. Transgenderism becomes a sort of leftist baptism, necessitating being born again and taking on a new name. And homosexuality becomes the leftist caricature of holy matrimony. Marriage is centered on the family, on self-giving love mirroring the love of God Himself and resulting in new life; homosexual acts are incapable of producing a family, and center instead on self-gratifying appetite, consuming the other to satisfy oneself. “Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world. The great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on,” Sheen declared of the religion of Hell-on-Earth. “From now on, the struggle will be … for the souls of men.” (READ MORE: The Holy Eucharist and the Hint of an Explanation) As moral degeneracy and cultural decadence become more and more common, more and more pronounced, it is time to look from these earthly cities to Heaven, the City of God. If we model ourselves after the denizens of Heaven, then not only may we hope one day to reside there for eternity, to join the ranks of those we emulate here on earth, but we may also find our own earthly cities transformed, perhaps mirroring a little better, a little more closely, the City of God. The post Pride Month, Leftism, and ‘The Ape of the Church’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) offered a spot-on illustration when the House debated ejecting the anti-Semitic Congressional representative of Somalia, Ilhan Omar, from the House Foreign Relations Committee. He explained that he personally always has disapproved of that tactic. He explained that he always preferred — and still does prefer — allowing elected representatives, no matter how despicable they be, to sit on committees. And then, during committee sessions, debate them firmly and unapologetically, beating them by making the better arguments and exposing them for what they are. Therefore, he said, he would prefer not throwing Somalia’s Omar off the committee. But … Alas, we now live in an uncharted era of “American Lawfare,” warfare conducted by abusing the rules of law to destroy political opponents. But, he added, we are playing in a new, dirty environment with different rules. The other side broke with history and protocol by preventing certain Republicans from sitting on committees. In other words, there are long-accepted rules of civility and comity, and both sides need to play by the same rules. (READ MORE from Dov Fischer: A Disgusting, Filthy Corruption of American Justice) For example, in baseball it is accepted that pitchers throw baseballs a variety of ways (fastball, curve, slider, change-up, knuckleball, screwball) and in a variety of locations (up and inside, low and inside, in the dirt, up and outside, low and outside, or even over the plate) in order to baffle batters and induce them to miss the ball when they swing. Major league pitchers are remarkably trained and skilled at hitting their exact target from 60 feet and 60 inches away. Once in a while, a pitcher is concerned that the opposing batter seems too comfortable, standing in an ideal position close to home plate, which enables the batter to reach and hit outside pitches more easily. To move the batter farther away from the plate, the pitcher occasionally throws an inside fastball close to the batter, almost hitting him. That alerts the batter to back away a bit, if only for his own health and safety. This is all common — and proper — play. Because pitchers in the major leagues are so expertly skilled, they can hurl that very hard spheroid precisely near the batter without actually hitting him. But sometimes a pitcher either accidentally misses, or acts perniciously, and deliberately strikes the opposing batter with the ball, often hurled at 95-100 miles per hour. That is wrong, unacceptable, and often malign. When that happens, all 50,000 spectators in the stadium know what to expect when the teams will change positions at the half-inning. You can be sure 100 out of 100 times that the other team’s pitcher, playing for the team whose batter was hit by a fastball five or ten minutes ago, will deliberately throw his fastest pitch at one of the best players on the other team. Everyone knows it is coming, especially the star player of that other team. He knows he soon will be drilled and hurt. There is nothing he can do to prevent it from coming. And then he gets hit awfully hard. If the batter is lucky, he will be in nasty pain for the next several days, on round-the-clock ibuprofen, and his wicked bruise will be gone in three weeks or a month. However, often he is not so lucky. Every so often, a ball pitched that way will break his hand, wrist, ankle, or some other bone, and he will be knocked out of action for three weeks or months. If that happens, you can be sure that the next time the league schedule has those two teams playing each other, even if many months later, the “bad blood” will be revived. The sport even has a name for throwing a hard fastball directly at the other guy for the purpose of retaliatorily pain infliction: it is called “beaning” the batter. The pitch that hits him is called a “Beanball.” (READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI) That’s the American Way in what is America’s National Pastime (or runner-up). There are clear rules. You deliberately broke them? Well, now prepare to get it back, and then we will “call it even.” That principle does not sound noble, but it is a form of comprehensible street justice. At the same time, it is not as much about revenge as it is about deterrence. A team — and all its pitchers — need to think more carefully about avoiding hurting players on the other side after they themselves have suffered those consequences. Writ large, Germany conducted a wave of nighttime bombings of civilian targets in London, so the U.K. — with invaluable American assistance — bombed Dresden into rubble. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both those countries redirected their relationships with America. That’s the American Way: We leave people alone. Just don’t target us wrongly. If you do, we will “bean” you — not so much as revenge but to make clear you better not even think of doing that again. Alas, we now live in an uncharted era of “American Lawfare,” warfare conducted by abusing the rules of law to destroy political opponents. The Soviets did that famously under Stalin, his NKVD, and the KGB. Everyone was fair game. Even Lavrentiy Beria, an architect of that murderous lawfare despite being reared by deeply religious and church-going Orthodox Georgian parents, ultimately got destroyed by his Stalinist lawfare himself in due time. Likewise, Hitler used his “legal” system, under chief judge Roland Freisler, to destroy his enemies. And so it always has gone in brutal dictatorships. British kings set up biased judges and prosecutors, augmented by false witnesses, to “try” innocent people like Sir Thomas More and a bunch of Henry VIII wives and their alleged consorts. The Spanish Inquisition was by definition, a judicial system relying on judges and courts to complete and validate their mass murders. America was always too great for that. We had presidents whose crookedness was discovered sooner or later. They never were prosecuted. It does seem that the Democrats would have prosecuted Nixon wrongly for Watergate, but Gerald Ford heroically pardoned Nixon before the country could be torn asunder by such lawfare. Democrat liberals and their associated press went ballistic against Ford, and their anger drove them to destroy his image and beat him when he sought election on his own in 1976. But the judgment of history for most non-partisan observers is that he was a great man, at least in that one particular way, sparing the country the spectacle of putting a president on trial, as they would do in Brazil, Pakistan, or South Africa. When Donald Trump ran for president, the throngs who attended his massive rallies would chant three particular slogans — each comprised of three one-syllable words, promoting rhythmic cadence — always with extra gusto: “Build That Wall!” “Drain the Swamp!” and “Lock Her Up.” That last referred to Hillary Clinton’s federal felonies perpetrated, particularly spoliating documentary evidence and destroying hard drives sought to investigate her. These were — and are — federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Even Martha Stewart was imprisoned for spoliating evidence. Trump smiled at his MAGA rallies as the chants were shouted, and thereafter he had four years to have prosecutors bring charges against Hillary. Similarly, conservative Republican prosecutors in the states had time to do so. But, for all the bluster and bluff, even the unpredictable Trump knew — deep down — that it is not the American Way to leverage the law with the full weight of the United States of America, to prosecute a political opponent. There are rules of civility and comity. They repeatedly have been broken by Democrat lawfare. More than for revenge, we urgently need deterrence. It is time for Republican prosecutors, Senate and House representatives, and perhaps soon the chief executive in the White House, to throw bean balls. The post American Lawfare? Time to Bean Them With a High, Hard Fastball appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When the rejections began rolling in, there was a universal theme. All the editors of the big publishing houses had taken the time to read my new memoir, and they all emailed my veteran literary agent to say how great the story was, or how well-written it was, or how intelligent the format, interesting, clever, funny, heartfelt, profound, etc. Yet all these wonderfully complementary messages ended with, “But…” I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. My agent kept apologizing to me and I was feeling sorry for her. As they always do, excuses ran the gamut. Several editors, however, were very honest about why they would not publish my book. One suggested that if I rewrite the book and omit the fact that I grew up in an area that was all white, she will consider it. After all, as she explained, that is offensive. Here is a direct quote from another. “If Neal was BIPOC or gay, I’d publish this in a heartbeat.” I get it. We all love stories of overcoming adversity. I believe most avid readers are sympathetic to those who face challenges concerning race, identity, and sexuality. I too support the LGBTQ+ community and equality for all. So, it could simply be basic economics—supply and demand. Having a mathematical mind, this makes perfect sense to me. There’s the historical context as well. For centuries, the literary industry, like every industry, was rigged against minorities and folks with perceived abnormal lifestyles. For too long it was a world of straight white men promoting other straight white men. But people in the publishing industry have led the charge to change that, and that’s a wonderful thing. Anytime you want to move the needle of status quo, you have to push hard in the opposite direction. They did that. They’re still doing it. Memoirs by authors who fit into this niche now dominate the landscape. When the reviews for these books come pouring in from all the major newspapers and review organizations, there is a central theme. The recurring word in all these reviews: “Brave.” The author was brave to go through what they did and very brave to tell their story. Hence, every “privilege” I was born with as far as most facets of life are concerned, is a handicap as an author. I grew up in a town that was all white and the dozen small towns nearby consisted of only white people as well. At a time when gay sex was still illegal in some states, I was never attracted to boys. Heck, even girls took a backseat to baseball. So I’ve never known courage of the kind where your very identity could put you in danger. If I could go back to the womb, perhaps I could plan better. Unfortunately, that is just the reality of my childhood. Hence, being that kind of brave can never be an option for me. But there are other kinds of brave. We lived in a shack in the woods with no electricity, no running water, no bathroom, no heat, and no insulation. Not even interior walls in the bedrooms. We shared the little shack with many pets—gray, furry, with big teeth and long pink tails. Wild animals crawled into our house and under my covers at times. My dad’s temper exploded into violent episodes dozens of times each day. I was seven years old the first time I stepped between him and Mom. It wasn’t to be a hero; I just thought it normal since Mom had done this for me many times. Anytime I could deflect Dad’s wrath from my mom or sisters, I would. (READ MORE: CRT and the Threat to the American Family) Growing up on a small farm in a small rural area meant I had no concept of the real world. Most things in life perplexed me. But I’ve never thought to question my identity or gender. Hence, what the publishing world sees as real bravery has eluded me. I had to raise hogs beginning at age eleven, and not the cute little family-friendly pigs that dominate Tik Tok today. Most of ours would kill you if given the chance. I had to learn how to castrate, ring noses, and for one huge 400-pound sow who was extremely dangerous, I had to reach inside her to retrieve her piglets when she was having trouble with delivery. But I’ve never done drugs. Before Nancy Reagan told me to, I always said, “No.” To this day, I’ve never done illegal drugs and rarely done legal ones. I just didn’t realize I was cheating myself out of the opportunity to overcome addiction and be a hero to others while aiding my future writing career. (READ MORE: Edmund Morris, Nancy Reagan, and Life) Either through fate or choice, I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. None of the things I experienced are defined as heroics in the modern literary world. And that’s okay. I never wanted to be a hero. I never claimed to be a hero. But I also didn’t plan to be such a straight, white Okie from Muskogee that it made being the right kind of courageous impossible and deemed my words irrelevant. I guess we all look back over our lives and question many of our decisions. But when a new memoir comes out from one of these “brave” writers, and the numerous editorial reviews harp on that bravery, it is especially depressing to realize how wrong I did everything without even trying. It reminds me of the scene from Cheers where Dick Cavett, playing himself, explained to Sam Malone that his biography about overcoming alcoholism and being a womanizer wasn’t enough anymore. He added that publishers today were looking for drugs and homosexuality. (Note: this was 1983.) Sam’s response sums up my entire life. “Sorry I didn’t get out more.” Neal Wooten is a widely published author. His memoir With the Devil’s Help:With the Devil’s Help: A True Story of Poverty, Mental Illness, and Murder (Pegasus Crime/Simon and Schuster) is being made into a ten-part scripted miniseries. The post I Wish I Could Be Brave appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Over five years ago, I reported on the socialist agenda of the climate change alarmists and the essentially socialistic character of what was then called “the Green New Deal.” The GND presented an elaborate, ultra-expensive mega-agenda to radically transform society by retooling the national economy in accord with a central plan concocted by a self-anointed elite. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. While the phrase “green new deal” has receded into the background, the current administration if rushing full-speed ahead to implement its top-down central plan to transform our society, using the false scare of climate change as its pretext. Trillions of federal dollars are being channeled into replacing our existing system of generating and transmitting electricity. Federal regulations are being promulgated to force Americans to replace everything from stoves to refrigerators to water heaters to dishwashers to heating and cooling units, etc. Other regulatory decrees are designed to replace vehicles powered by internal combustion engines with battery-powered electric vehicles. (READ MORE from Mark Hendrickson: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally) The leftwing character of this socialistic agenda keeps resurfacing in multifarious anecdotes. One of the more extreme examples: It has recently come to light that some of the trillion-plus dollars appropriated for the climate agenda under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has been given to a group called “Climate Justice Alliance.” In the name of “climate justice” (a dangerously open-ended buzzword phrase if there ever was one) this group believes that Palestine is a climate justice issue. It fulminates against  familiar leftwing bogeymen such as “colonialism” and “imperialism” as well as some newer buzzwords like “extractivism” (you know — the process of taking things out of the Earth that people can use, like food and energy). One of their slogans makes their ties with orthodox socialist ideology super clear: “Only Socialist Revolution Can Stop World War III.” Huh? What does that have to do with climate change? In doing some research, I came across an article from three years ago that typifies the socialist bias of the climate change movement. The author engaged in an ad hominem attack against Mark Mills. Mills is a physicist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of the practical problems of actually implementing the GND. He has tabulated the dauntingly vast quantities of various minerals that will have to be extracted (sorry, you anti-“extractivists”) in order to produce wind and solar energy on the scale dreamed of by their advocates. Mills’ work is based on numbers, not ideology, so what is his critic’s problem with him? He advises his readers not to pay heed to Mills’ writings because “Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.” Not only that, Mills once gave a talk sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Ah, guilt by association. Earlier this year, an organization named Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) expressed alarm about a growing number of videos on YouTube that counter climate alarmism. CCDH wants to censor such videos. They want Americans to stay alarmed and to support the radical transformation of society that climate change alarmists advocate. Of particular concern to CCDH and others in the alarmist camp are three categories of what they call “new denial.” As reported by Bloomberg, these three anti-alarmist categories are “(1) The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless. (2) Climate solutions won’t work. (3) Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.” Apart from the weirdness (and danger) of classifying opinions that don’t conform to climate alarmism as a form of “digital hate,” anyone who has been following the issue closely can see that the growing doubts and concerns about the alarmist agenda are all eminently reasonable. For the CCDH to suggest that the massive greening of the planet in recent decades due to CO2 enrichment is anything other than beneficial is ridiculous. To denounce the modest global warming of the last 150 years that has lengthened agricultural growing seasons and boosted food production sufficient to sustain eight billion human lives seems cruelly misanthropic. To point out the inefficiencies, relative unreliability, and enormous negative environmental impacts of mass producing intermittent energy sources (primarily solar and wind) is not only not hateful disinformation, but highly responsible. To assert that climate “science” and the political movement that it spawned — so heavily politicized that its cost/benefit analyses omit benefits — is unreliable is actually an understatement. (READ MORE: Without the Never-Trump Vote, Trump Can’t Win) The Bloomberg article cited above is representative of the mainstream press’s pro-alarmist bias. Such articles are more effective because the bias is more subtle — no trumpeting socialist revolution or implying that people who favor free markets are troglodytes. The Bloomberg headline states: “Attacks on Renewable Energy Are Proliferating on YouTube,” and the first paragraph warns against videos “attacking” alleged climate change solutions like wind and solar. Question: Are there no “attacks” against fossil fuels? Of course there are! “Attack” is an emotive word. The alarmists believe that they are advocating right policies, which entitles them to argue in the most forceful terms why we, the people, should stop using fossil fuels. In other words, they are “attacking” the use of fossil fuels, but they claim they are simply presenting facts. Then they turn around and whine when knowledgeable skeptics challenge their conclusions, labeling such arguments as “attacks,” as if they are somehow nefarious. The word “attack” implies that the person advancing that point of view is an aggressor, an evil actor. But on the issue of climate change, it is the alarmists who are the aggressors. They are attacking American’s lifestyles. They favor elitist central planning over the consumer sovereignty that free people benefit from. What we have playing out in the climate change arena is yet another would-be leftist revolution. The alarmists are pushing an elitist, centrally planned, top-down scheme for transforming our entire society. We skeptics are the counter-revolutionaries, striving to preserve our rights, our freedoms, and our prosperity. It makes me think of the Nicaraguan struggle in the 1980s between the Marxist revolutionaries and the contras (the counter-revolutionaries — the freedom fighters — that President Reagan supported). If the Gipper were here today, he would be leading the American contras in our resistance to the socialist tyranny that the left is striving to impose upon us. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. Join the fight for freedom. If you aren’t one already, become a climate contra. The post Climate Change Socialism on the Attack appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Former Liberal Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull has taken to the pages of Foreign Affairs to warn America and the world about dealing with a possible second Trump presidency. Turnbull, who has made appearances on Trump-deranged MSNBC where he described Trump as a dictator-wannabee and an admirer of Vladimir Putin and other dictators, and who the BBC described as “cosmopolitan and progressive,” was Australia’s Prime Minister between 2015 and 2018. His essay is full of psychobabble about Trump being a “gaslighter,” a “bully” and “convinced of his own genius,” a leader who wants to be surrounded by “sycophants.” Trump, if he wins in November 2024, Turnbull writes, will “feel as invincible in his triumph as a Roman emperor, but he won’t have a slave by his side whispering, ‘Remember, you are mortal.’” Turnbull advises America’s allies to “stand up to the bullying” should Trump return to the White House. Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister … who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister.” Turnbull as Prime Minister called Communist China a “frenemy,” and in his memoir he calls China a “bully.” Back in 2011, Turnbull told an audience at the London School of Economics that China’s economic growth was nothing to worry about, and didn’t mean that it would also become a military threat. In the speech, he showed a fondness for quoting New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who is nearly always wrong about China) and Barack Obama, both of whom welcomed China’s “peaceful” rise. “[I]t is important to note,” Turnbull said, “that China’s growth in power, both economic and military, has not been matched by any expansionist tendencies beyond reuniting Taiwan.” China’s approach toward trade, he remarked, “also argues for its rise to remain peaceful.” Nor was there any need to worry about China’s naval power. “Suggestions that China’s recent launch of one aircraft carrier and plans to build another are signs of a new belligerence are wide of the mark,” Turnbull said. “This is no time for another ‘long telegram’ or suggestions of containment,” Turnbull said. “China, unlike the Soviet Union, does not seek to export its ideology or system of government to other countries.” Perhaps Turnbull should consult the people of Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan about that. China experts like Matthew Pottinger and Elbridge Colby, both of whom served in the Trump administration, know that while China may be more patient than Soviet leaders were, they are every bit as expansionist as their communist predecessors were in Russia. The Belt and Road Initiative, for example, involves China using its economic power and leverage to expand its geopolitical reach across Eurasia, into Africa, and even as far as Latin America. Turnbull criticized Americans and Australians who recommended basing long-term strategic policy on a potential clash with China. He rejected the notion that Australia should base its defense planning and procurement on a possible naval war against China in the South China Sea. He welcomed China’s economic rise as being responsible for Australia’s prosperity. Even Turnbull had to admit in a 2017 speech in Singapore how wrong he had been to be so complacent about China. And he acknowledged in that speech that President Trump was right to expect Australia and other allies to pay more for their own defense. Before becoming Prime Minister, Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister, where he earned the moniker the “Duke of Double Bay” and who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister” who engaged in an “audacious bid to end Tony Abbott’s political career and seize the Prime Ministership which he had desperately coveted for many years.” According to Turnbull in his Foreign Affairs piece, he stood up to Trump the “bully” several times, and persuaded Trump to see things his (Turnbull’s) way and, therefore, won Trump’s respect. Why, one wonders, would Turnbull seek the respect of Trump “the bully” or Trump “the dictator?” And while Turnbull calls Trump “erratic,” some of Turnbull’s domestic critics called Turnbull “incoherent and inconsistent,” said his China policy was “absolutely all over the place,” and accused Turnbull of being “soft” on China. Is Malcom Turnbull really someone who other world leaders should take advice from about Donald Trump or anything else? The Trump administration, as Josh Rogin explained in Chaos Under Heaven, shifted U.S. foreign policy in a confrontational direction toward China, adopting a whole of government approach to dealing with the global threat posed by Communist China. Instead of being “erratic” and “all over the place” like Turnbull, the Trump administration actually pivoted to the Indo-Pacific, much to the benefit of our friends down under. Perhaps a little gratitude is in order from Australia’s former leader. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Neocons Slander the American Right A Short History of Democratic Party Lawfare The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War The post Spare Us the Advice From Down Under appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.