As women work their way towards equality when it comes to the division of domestic labor, a new trend has them pointing out how men use weaponized incompetence to get out of their responsibilities.Weaponized incompetence is a strategy in which someone appears incapable of performing specific tasks so that someone else has to pick up the slack. Many men use this tactic to make women primarily responsible for household chores, cooking and caring for children.“This is something that women have been dealing with all their lives,” Nadine Shaanta Murshid, PhD, associate professor of social work at the University at Buffalo, believed to have coined the term, told The Skimm. “The idea is that men are not good at certain things like domestic labor. And so, why not have women who are good at it, do it, because they're naturally predisposed to being good at this?”A Redditor who goes by the name Latitude32 shared a powerful example of weaponized incompetence on a women’s forum in a post that has received over 1,300 comments. The post is titled: “Husband asked me how to do mac and cheese.”“The kids had to be fed and I started a pot to make mac and cheese,” Latitude32 wrote. “I left it cooking to move on to the next task — to bathe our dog. I asked my husband to finish up the mac and cheese so I could continue bathing our dog.”Unfortunately, he needed help making macaroni and cheese, a dish with only a few basic steps. This was strange because the man was an IT engineer who knew a thing or two about reading instructions and carrying out complex tasks.“I'm elbow deep in dog hair and soap and the next thing I know, he had the nerve to ask me, ‘What do I do after draining the pasta?’ EXCUSE ME? Our kids are 13 and 5, so he has done mac and cheese MULTIPLE TIMES by now. Additionally, the instructions are, literally, ON THE BOX,” Latitude32 continued.Her response to her husband? “Some of the best chefs in the world are men and you should figure it out.”“If this isn't weaponized incompetence, I don't know what is,” Latitude32 concluded her post. “I can't help but think we've set up the bar for guys waaaay too low.”The post received many comments from women complaining that their husbands relied on weaponized incompetence to shield them from household responsibilities. However, many shared some constructive advice on how they solved the problem by setting appropriate boundaries with their husbands.“My favorite saying always works here. ‘Pretend I’m dead. What would you do?’ I will not allow the weaponized incompetence,” Socialmediaignorant wrote. “If my husband pulls that ‘oh how do you do a simple task,’ I remind him he has THREE degrees, so I have every faith in him to figure it out,” No-Winter1049 added.“I had a colleague whose rule for her husband and son was, ‘If they don’t do it well the first time, make sure they do it repeatedly until they’re good at it.’ They learned quickly that helplessness was not their friend,” Humanityrus wrote.Not all men use weaponized incompetence to get out of household responsibilities. Plenty of adults respect their partners by pulling their fair share around the house. However, posts like Latitide32’s are a great way of explaining the tactics their significant others may use to avoid pulling their weight. When we expose the roots of a problem, it becomes a lot easier to identify and then, fix.

An endlessly misinterpreted track. The post The Story Behind The Song: the defiant politics of ‘Fortunate Son’ by Creedence Clearwater Revival first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

There’s no mistaking the main intention of those who sought Donald Trump’s scalp in Manhattan. Immediately after the guilty verdict was announced, the Left was off and running with the label it so eagerly sought: “Donald Trump: Convicted Felon.” Liberals can now shout from their rooftops and coffeeshops: “Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 counts by a jury of 12!” The Biden–Harris campaign immediately issued a statement branding Trump a “convicted felon.” When I shared that Biden assessment with someone on Thursday, I was cleverly told that it’s “Team Brandon branding Trump.” READ MORE: ‘Get Trump’ Is Backfiring Already But there’s more to the branding. For liberals, this will be an indictment not only of Donald Trump but of anyone who dares to vote for him. They can rage: “How could you vote for a felon unanimously convicted on 34 counts by a jury of 12?!” This will be a mighty tool to brand not only Trump but also his supporters, to deter them from voting for him. Will it work? The label likely will scare away some Trump voters, though when alone in that booth, they can vote as they desire. But it will also energize Trump supporters and surely attract others who deem the trial an injustice against Trump. A close black colleague of mine told me last fall — when Alvin Bragg first went after Trump, and Trump’s mugshot emerged in Georgia — that these efforts would secure Trump 20 percent of the black vote, the highest for any Republican nominee since Richard Nixon. She assured me that blacks treated unjustly by the justice system would rally to Trump. When I responded incredulously, she snapped: “Look, I’m black and you’re not. I understand and you don’t.” I’ve seen that her prognostication might be spot on. Last week Trump held a huge rally in the Bronx of all places. I was in New York City and happened to talk to a young man who attended the rally. He’s in his early 20s, white, and Jewish. I eagerly asked what the rally was like. “Super weird,” he laughed. “I never felt like such a minority as a white dude.” I told him that the photos I had seen — albeit from the corrupt left-wing media — showed mainly white people at the Bronx rally, looking like typical MAGA types. He corrected me: “No, no. Everyone around me was black or Latino.” He said the only white person he saw was a hysterical middle-aged white woman holding a sign denouncing Trump as a “Nazi.” Three black guys grabbed the sign, threw it to the ground, and start chanting, “Four more years, four more years!” One can scarcely imagine the ideological apoplexy that this woke woman was tossed into at that moment. Did not these suffering members of the racial proletariat understand that Donald Trump is Hitler incarnate? Do they not know that he wants to put their people back in chains? The woman no doubt hailed from other environs in New York, namely, those that Trump blasted after Thursday’s verdict. Those are areas where Trump is considered the new Führer, der Donald, the orange beast who will “destroy democracy.” Those people cheered their great victory on Thursday, believing their new branding of Trump will seal an electoral victory for Biden in November. But what they don’t realize is that 99 percent of the American land mass loathes liberal New Yorkers. That vast mass is unsurprised that an angry Manhattan jury would unanimously convict Trump on 34 counts of anything, including clubbing the corpse of his dead mother. The American Spectator’s Bruce Bawer invoked the film 12 Angry Men, though, in this case, it was actually eight angry women and four men. The group was described by former Trump official and media figure Sebastian Gorka, who was inside the courtroom for the spectacle. Gorka counted “eight white New York women in their 30s,” one of them in a hoodie and another in a jean jacket, and remarked, “I think we know who they voted for.” They dressed “as if this were a traffic court.” As for the men, Gorka was struck that none wore a suit nor even a tie. (Click here for Gorka’s full eyewitness account.) How they dressed, however, was utterly secondary to how they decided. Our Dan Flynn put it well in his piece aptly titled: “This is not America. It’s Manhattan.” It is indeed. And Americans know that.  Left-wing New Yorkers hate Trump. In late April, I walked by the Trump Hotel on the Upper West Side, as I’ve done many times since Trump was elected in 2016. It’s quite a scene because there are always dozens of NYPD vehicles parked there, almost as if the Trump Hotel were another precinct for New York’s men in blue. The cops love Trump. In stark contrast, the liberals who walk by revile him. I observed one vulgarian passing by the Trump Hotel with both middle fingers hoisted into the air and shouting, “F*** you, Trump!” This idiot didn’t mind that my two youngest boys and other kids were witnessing his obscenities. When I told someone at dinner about what I witnessed, she responded, “That happens there all the time.” And it effectively happened at that courthouse in Manhattan on Thursday. The degree to which the guilty verdict will work for Democrats remains to be seen. One person who thinks it will not work is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the boldly independent third-party candidate who has talked to this publication several times (click here and here) since declaring his candidacy. He knows how corrupt Biden and the Democrats are. They’ve even refused him Secret Service protection. Here was Kennedy’s immediate response on X: “The Democratic Party’s strategy is to beat President Trump in the courtroom rather than the ballot box. This will backfire in November. Even worse, it is profoundly undemocratic.” In a direct shot at Biden, Kennedy added: “America deserves a President who can win at the ballot box without compromising our government’s separation of powers or weaponizing the courts. You can’t save democracy by destroying it first. The Democrats are afraid they will lose in the voting booth, so instead they go after President Trump in the courtroom.”  The Democratic Party’s strategy is to beat President Trump in the courtroom rather than the ballot box. This will backfire in November. Even worse, it is profoundly undemocratic. America deserves a President who can win at the ballot box without compromising our government’s… — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 30, 2024 Kennedy knows this acutely because he has watched these professed champions of “Democracy!” rush to the courts in every state to keep him off ballots. That’s what they do. They weaponize the courts. And though liberals will recoil at the accusation, what they’ve pursued against Trump truly has been “election interference” via the courts. They’ll insist that they’re simply seeking legal justice, but they can’t deny their obvious intention to silence Trump from campaigning and possibly prevent him from the GOP nomination. It’s stunningly perfect for them that Trump’s sentencing will come just days before the GOP convention in Milwaukee. How convenient. But how will this work for them, ultimately? Next week’s polling numbers will be fascinating to see. Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, Trump leads Biden by only 0.9 percent. If that number jumps up next week, liberals will have a meltdown. And to many Trump supporters, the liberals’ branding of him and them will be a badge of honor.  The post Branding Trump — And His Voters appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Biden’s poll numbers are dismal, but that’s not deterring him from running a low-profile campaign. In March, the Biden campaign launched a novel strategy: meeting with individual voters in staged and heavily promoted greetings, rather than holding large rallies. For example, President Joe Biden traveled to Saginaw, Michigan, to meet with a gay couple in their home. The couple was perfectly cast for the role: they are Democratic Party loyalists and one of the men is a Saginaw city councilman. The Biden campaign characterizes the strategy as leveraging Biden’s strength in one-on-one interactions. A Reuters article that reads like it was planted by Biden’s PR team describes the new strategy thus: “In sharp contrast to the mass rallies hosted by Republican rival Donald Trump — heavy on stagecraft with classic rock playlists, anti-immigration rhetoric, and mostly white audiences — Biden meets with small, more diverse groups of voters for personal conversations.” The strategy of meeting with trusted Biden supporters in staged and scripted events aims to insulate the aging president from rallies and speaking appearances. At the same time, it allows the president to maintain the appearance of actively campaigning. The problem, of course, is that meeting individually with a few diehard supporters is unlikely to move the needle. Nevertheless, Biden’s advisers have decided that actually putting the candidate on the campaign trail would hurt more than help. This approach of hiding Biden away as much as possible extends into his presidential duties. Biden is unique from almost all modern presidents in the degree to which he evades the press. He has held less than half as many press conferences as the past six presidents up to this point in their presidencies. In addition, until the end of April, Biden had granted 118 interviews compared to Trump’s 327 and Obama’s 479 during the same period. Hiding isn’t working. Polls show Trump is leading or in a statistical tie with Biden in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, according to the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, and ahead in most recent popular vote polls. Democrats are now in a panic. “Dems in full-blown ‘freakout’ over Biden” was the headline for an article in Politico earlier this week. “A pervasive sense of fear has settled in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party over President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, even among officeholders and strategists who had previously expressed confidence about the coming battle with Donald Trump,” begins the article. Politico described more than a dozen unnamed “party leaders and operatives” as being in a state of “palpable trepidation.” Democrats have increased hope that polls will shift in Biden’s favor following Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts in his New York trial. However, whether the trial will significantly affect the election remains far from certain. Biden better hope that Trump’s conviction will change the course of the race because his team appears certain that increasing visibility via press conferences and rallies would backfire and a quiet campaign can only achieve so much. Moreover, there is ample reason to believe Biden’s advisers are totally correct in believing that hiding Biden away as much as possible is the best course of action. When Biden held a press conference to address fears about his mental acuity brought on by Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, it blew up in his face after he misspoke on several instances and came across as an angry old man. Yet Democrats are increasingly calling for the Biden campaign to shift strategies and make the candidate — and his message — more visible. On Thursday, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), criticized the Biden campaign, telling Politico, “I’m in a battleground state. I know what has and hasn’t been done. I felt a level of disconnection earlier on the message, on the messengers and on mobilization.” On Wednesday, Biden did make a joint appearance with Kamala Harris in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, aimed at black voters — and seemingly in response to the criticisms that he is failing to connect with them. Some media reports described an excited crowd, but images of the rare Biden rally make it appear poorly attended. More of the same will just be an embarrassment. This is the cost of having a terrible candidate: the options are limited to maintaining silence or facing repeated failure. READ MORE: Justin Trudeau Is in Deep, Deep Trouble The post Biden’s Silent Campaign Strategy Proves Disastrous Yet Continues Unabated appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Several Catholic organizations, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last week after the commission included abortion in its implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).  The act, which was passed in 2022, seeks to provide “more robust protections for pregnant women in the workforce,” making it “illegal for employers to deny reasonable accommodations” for pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the legal group representing the USCCB. Some examples of “reasonable accommodations” include additional breaks, adapting a uniform to allow maternity clothes, adjusting a work schedule, and leave for health care appointments, among many others. The text of the PWFA does not mention abortion at all. Throughout the deliberation process, legislators repeatedly clarified that the act does not require employers to accommodate the procurement of abortion. “I want to say for the record … that under the act, under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the [EEOC] could not—could not—issue any regulation that requires abortion leave,” Sen. Bob Casey, the bill’s sponsor, stated on the Senate floor prior to the bill’s passage.  But the EEOC had other ideas. After Congress passed the PWFA, the legislation was turned over to the EEOC for implementation. Though the act doesn’t reference abortion, the EEOC and the courts have previously interpreted the Title VII phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” — the very same phrase employed in the PWFA — to include abortion. Further, as Becket Law explains, the agency “claims that the ‘plain meaning’ of the PWFA supports abortion’s inclusion, because abortion involves ‘the condition of being pregnant.’”   Drawing on this definition, the agency mandated that “employers nationwide must accommodate employee abortions,” meaning that employers must “knowingly agree to let their employees take leave, including paid leave, to have an abortion.”  Additionally, the EEOC prevents employers from “communicat[ing] about pro-life beliefs in ways that ‘interfere’ with abortion accommodation.” Under the agency’s final rule, religious employers must “rescind their current policies and practices against abortion accommodations or advocacy” and “replace them with policies” that “affirm a willingness to accommodate abortion”; “prohibit any potentially ‘harassing’ discussion of abortion in the workplace”; and do not “interfere with” an employee’s decision to obtain an abortion. In other words, as National Catholic Register points out, pro-life speech in the workplace could be construed as “retaliation,” opening employers up to potential legal action. The agency will only consider religious liberty objections on a “case-by-case” basis, creating notable legal and financial barriers to employers seeking exemptions. The USCCB had previously supported the passage of the PWFA on the basis that “the law’s purpose of protecting the well-being of expecting mothers and their unborn children [is] a goal consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief in the inherent dignity of all human life.” But now the bishops feel betrayed. Represented by Becket, the USCCB, the Catholic University of America, the Diocese of Lake Charles, Louisiana, and the Diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the western district of Louisiana on May 22. (RELATED: The Supreme Court’s Religious Retreat)  “The bill’s purpose was laudable and obvious: to expand protections for pregnant women in the workplace,” wrote Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the USCCB, in the Wall Street Journal. “Yet the EEOC … has twisted it to undermine human dignity.”  Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, stated:  It is indefensible for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to twist the law in a way that violates the consciences of pro-life employers by making them facilitate abortions. No employer should be forced to participate in an employee’s decision to end the life of their child. The discrepancy between the PWFA’s intent — to protect a working mother’s health and the health of her baby — and the EEOC’s interpretation is obvious. But it shouldn’t be surprising that the administrative state is intent on smuggling abortion into every corner of the law. After all, throughout the Trump administration, Republican priorities were continually undercut by politically motivated bureaucrats. Congress can pass as much legislation it wants, but until the institution reclaims the actual work of governing from the administrative state, this won’t be the last lawsuit Catholics have to file in defense of religious liberty.  Mary Frances Myler is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:  Even Portland Is Fed Up with Progressive Policies  The Longhouse Comes for ‘Lomez’ Biden’s Green Energy Policies Help China, Not America The post Bishops Sue Biden’s EEOC for Mandating Employers ‘Accommodate Employee Abortions’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

One of the best features of ChatGPT 4o is its ability to search the internet and provide current responses to queries about current events. This feature alone makes this column about artificial intelligence relevant to the average American. It’s much easier to identify biases about events happening now before the historical record has been solidified than it is to detect the biases AI has in relating events that we all barely remember. Thursday’s not-entirely-unexpected bombshell news that a New York jury found the former president of the United States guilty of 34 felony counts is the perfect opportunity to check AI’s bias. (It’s also the perfect opportunity to come to terms with corruption in the American legal system, and you can do that by reading Dov Fischer’s, Dan Flynn’s, and Bruce Bawer’s analyses for The American Spectator.) So, while I hope that no one else is turning to ChatGPT 4o to get their daily dose of the news (they should be subscribed to Dan Flynn’s newsletter instead), I thought I would ask the bot to write me a 300-word article about Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in New York and — crucially — to include its sources. Let’s talk about the results. (READ MORE: Could We Endow AI With Reason? Meta and OpenAI Think So.) First, a quick fact-checking statement. The verdict was delivered on May 30, 2024, not May 24, 2024 — that seems a rather important factual error on the part of the bot. Additionally, the resulting article is 397 words, which is closer to 400 words than 300, but if I’m being fair to AI, it’s a lot to summarize in 300. AI tends to demonstrate its bias by what it doesn’t say rather than what it does say. You’ll notice that ChatGPT 4o says Trump’s supporters believe the case is “an example of partisan bias.” That’s an accurate statement. But what the bot doesn’t seem interested in enumerating are the reasons for that conclusion. There’s an impressive list of abnormalities in the case in New York — not the least of which involves Judge Juan Merchan’s connections to the Biden campaign (he’s not only donated to Democrats, but his daughter is the president of Authentic Campaigns, which collects donations for Democrat candidates and causes) and his rather odd instructions to the jury. (READ MORE like this: ChatGPT 4o Is Better But Still Biased) Of course, there’s a good reason the bot didn’t include those salient details in its reporting. Its sources, which it kindly enumerated for us at the bottom, include CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. Right. Because if you want to be unbiased, get your facts exclusively from the biggest left-wing media moguls out there. My analysis is hardly complete, so give ChatGPT-4o’s article a read and enjoy enumerating its many faults in the comments section below: PROMPT 1: Write a 300-word article summarizing Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in New York. Include sources and discuss the controversies surrounding the case and the verdict. PROMPT 2: Can you rewrite the article to include the impact it could have on the election? ChatGPT-4o: In a significant legal development, former President Donald Trump was found guilty in a New York state court, marking a pivotal moment in the numerous legal battles he faces. The verdict, delivered on May 24, 2024, stems from charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. This case is part of a broader investigation into Trump’s business practices and campaign finance violations. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office accused Trump of orchestrating a scheme to pay off two women who claimed to have had affairs with him, thereby suppressing potentially damaging stories during the campaign. The payments were allegedly funneled through Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to related charges in 2018 and testified against Trump during the trial. Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them a politically motivated witch hunt. The verdict has ignited a maelstrom of controversy. Supporters of Trump argue that the prosecution is an example of partisan bias, aiming to undermine Trump’s influence and 2024 presidential campaign. They claim that similar actions by other politicians have not been pursued with the same vigor, suggesting a double standard in the justice system. Critics, on the other hand, view the verdict as a long-overdue accountability for Trump’s alleged pattern of flouting the law. They argue that the case demonstrates that no one, not even a former president, is above the law. Legal experts note that the falsification of business records, while often treated as a minor offense, becomes a felony when linked to a broader crime such as campaign finance violations. The impact of this verdict on the upcoming 2024 election cannot be overstated. For Trump supporters, the verdict may galvanize his base, portraying him as a victim of political persecution. This narrative could strengthen his appeal among voters who already distrust the political establishment and the media. Conversely, for opponents, the guilty verdict could serve as a potent reminder of Trump’s legal troubles and ethical controversies, potentially swaying undecided voters and energizing opposition turnout. As Trump prepares for an appeal, the legal and political ramifications of the verdict will likely reverberate through the election cycle, influencing voter sentiments and the strategies of both his supporters and opponents. The case underscores the deeply polarized nature of American politics and raises critical questions about the rule of law and accountability at the highest levels of government. Sources: CNN: “Donald Trump Found Guilty in New York Falsifying Business Records Case” The New York Times: “Trump Convicted: Former President Found Guilty in Hush Money Case” BBC News: “Trump Guilty Verdict: What It Means for His 2024 Campaign” This is a weekly column at The American Spectator dedicated to exposing the left-wing bent of generative AI machines. If you enjoyed it and want to see what else ChatGPT comes up with, feel free to leave ideas for prompts in the comments section below! The post AI Has Thoughts on Trump’s Guilty Verdict appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Ronan Manly, BullionStar: As we approach mid-year 2024 in the environment of an all-time high US dollar gold price, its notable that central bank gold buying continues to be one of the main themes dominating gold market discussion. This is because following a record year in 2022, when according to the World Gold Council […]

from Liberty Sentinel: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

According to a new SEC filing by Live Nation Entertainment, a security breach has put untold troves of personal data at risk. Live Nation is the owner of the ubiquitous ticket-selling platform Ticketmaster, and that platform appears to "primarily" be the issue, according to the filing. "On May 20, 2024,...