"Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity..." The post ‘Don’t Fear The Reaper’: the rock classic song inspired by Shakespeare first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"It's just really inspiring to me and to what I do." The post “All these insane rhythms”: Brittany Howard’s favourite Led Zeppelin album first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

There aren’t many prestigious and popular institutions left capable of uniting the whole world regardless of ideologies, race, nation, or religion. Until Paris 2024, the Olympic Games used to be one of them. Not anymore. Let me give you two images. One is the blasphemous inauguration with transvestites mocking the Last Supper. Another is the Italian boxer Angela Carini crying after receiving a brutal beating in 46 seconds at the hands of a boxer recognized as “intersex,” that is, she was born with female genitalia but with XY chromosomes and in tests gave male testosterone levels. She is participating among women in the Olympic Games because, according to the IOC, “she has the right to practice sport without discrimination.” Everything, absolutely everything, is wrong at the Olympic Games in France. (WATCH: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 63: Don’t Believe Them. The Drag Queens at the Olympics Were Mocking Christianity) The blasphemous inauguration was not intended to offend anyone, the organization assures. The truth is that it offended everyone. Christians for the blasphemy, and everyone else, for the sordid and ugly spectacle. As if that were not enough, it included a typically woke vindication of transsexualism, the movement that has put an end to women for once and for all, with enthusiastic support from queer feminists. I’ve written it before: If anyone can be a woman, being a woman means absolutely nothing. That male victory is superior to that of any machismo you can imagine, but since it’s championed by the woke left, criticizing it makes you a target for cancellation. The IOC Is More Concerned About Inclusivity Than Safety The case of the intersex boxer is dramatic and scandalous, not because she is trans, which she is not, but because what’s behind the IOC’s crazy decision is precisely queer feminism and the LGBT movement. First, because the IOC considers that leaving her out would be “discriminatory” and that everyone has the right to participate. I would like to know if the IOC would let me participate in the Olympic Games in the women’s boxing event, if instead of ears, due to some genetic quirk, I had developed two bazookas that opened fire randomly. (READ MORE: The Paris Olympics Aren’t Representative of the France I Know) Second, in all institutions, as well as in the political arena, there is real panic about making reasonable decisions that could be considered “transphobic,” and no one cares if that puts children who are victims of genital mutilation in a precarious situation, or women boxers in a position in which they see their Olympic dreams cut short while being brutally beaten by someone who has the strength of a man. And third, because the key to queer madness is to establish that there are no relevant biological differences between men and women and, therefore, following their stupid logic, we should eliminate separate categories and pray that there are not too many fatalities at the end of the Olympic Games. I believe that the blasphemous and pro-trans inauguration of the French was a way to avoid criticism for transgender athletes. When it was announced in May that the International Athletics Federation was banning Halba Diouf, a French transsexual who wanted to compete with women, from Paris 2024, the progressive press around the world published tearful headlines such as “The Federation’s transphobia” or “Diouf’s broken dream.” I have something to say now: go screw yourselves. The broken dream, the only one I care about, is that of female athletes who have every right in the world to compete with real women, not hormonal experiments whose balls have hopefully been chopped off. Welcome to the Wokeolympics But the wokeolympics are going far beyond this. Macron has made sure that, minus talent and sport, all the other postmodern progressive clichés are present in the biggest propaganda showcase in the sporting world (they know it and that’s why they do it): The Olympic Villiage’s menu is almost entirely vegan to reduce the carbon footprint, it was built with 94 percent reclaimed materials from dismantling other buildings, there are renewable energy systems everywhere, trees instead of air conditioning, circular economy proposals, and that wonderful unsustainable madness of recyclable cardboard beds for the athletes. In the face of all this ideological garbage spoiling the Olympic spirit, I prefer to stay with the image of the Turkish shooter Yusuf Dikec. While his rivals wore advanced lenses of extreme precision, helmets, ultra-sophisticated protection systems, and other technological gadgets, Dikec, with no protection, no lenses, no helmets, and with one hand in his pocket grabs his gun with all parsimony, pulls the trigger and takes the silver medal. Without intending to, Dikec represents the true Olympic spirit, the one it used to have, and his ultra-sophisticated competitors represent the ridiculous madness of these wokeolympics. (READ MORE: We’ll Never Have Paris) Macron’s France is an aberration and an embarrassment to the West, but, above all, like any woke beacon, it is an immense imposture. The pollution problems of the Seine River that have forced the suspension of aquatic events were perfectly portrayed by the Brazilian Ed Raposo on X: “The Seine River looking like a tyrannosaurus diarrhea and Macron wanting to save the Amazon.” Translated by Joel Dalmau. Buy Itxu Díaz’s new book, I Will Not Eat Crickets: An Angry Satirist Declares War on the Globalist Elite, here today! The post France Shows the World How to Ruin the Olympics appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

While studying philosophy as an undergrad, I took a seminar on Friedrich Nietzsche. What followed could be described as a mild infatuation. I even drew a portrait of the infamous atheist philosopher, signature bushy mustache and all. Some girls I knew had celebrity crushes; I had my emotionally unstable artistic and intellectual geniuses, from van Gogh to our favorite German philologist. Perhaps part of what contributed to my fascination was that he was misunderstood and had an edgy reputation. He was an intellectual bad boy and consequently an intriguing topic for conversation. I enjoyed explaining to people why Nietzsche wasn’t the amoral Nazi he is often made out to be. Many seemed to find these nerd rants interesting. I frequently called my mother and excitedly told her about what I was learning in my seminar. (READ MORE: Critics of Lolita Need to Learn How to Read Fiction) To my surprise, my mom was perturbed by my most recent intellectual hobby horse. She wasn’t impressed with my assurances that a good Christian could still benefit from Nietzsche’s writings. After all, this was the philosopher who infamously announced, “God is dead and we have killed him.” Although this proclamation was a lament over the West’s departure from its time-honored moral system and not a battle cry, Nietzsche still proposed finding meaning in life without Christ and my dear mother had difficulty getting over that. It was at this point that she made up her mind that I needed some intervention. My birthday was only a couple of months after the semester ended and she presented me with the entire box set of The Little House on the Prairie series. Knowing full well what she was up to, I smiled, graciously accepted the gift, and went back to reading Crime and Punishment or whatever other dark and depressing literature I was into at the time. I was a scholar. I only read deep, thought-provoking stuff. While I appreciated my mother’s intentions, I only had so much time, and reading Little House books was not on the agenda. Children’s Literature, Like Little House, Can Be a Welcome Reprieve Sometime later, while going through a difficult period in my life, I found the box and cracked open one of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House novellas. I was hooked and read every single one. With its gently colored illustrations, simple prose, and wholesome values, I found the series the very nourishment my spirit needed. My mom was right. One cannot subsist on hardcore philosophy alone. So many lessons abounded in those books. The beautiful relationship between Ma and Pa Ingalls was a stellar example of sacrifice and mutual appreciation. Ma lived her stoic philosophy in times of hardship with such inspiring wisdom and perseverance, stating, “This earthly life is a battle…If it isn’t one thing to contend with, it’s another. It always has been so, and it always will be. The sooner you make up your mind to that, the better off you are, and more thankful for your pleasures.” Similarly, I was deeply moved by the Ingalls family’s abundant gratitude for the simple things in life. Focusing on the hard but simple tasks of planting food, doing chores, and supporting a family is a breath of fresh air in today’s world that makes life so extra, so complicated. (READ MORE: A Sacred Peace: The Promise and Perils of Localism) Frankly, reading Little House on the Prairie changed my life. It molded my perspective and taught me life lessons the other books I was reading could not. To this day I remain an avid reader of classics from Platonic dialogues to Russian novels, but I’ve since branched out to children’s literature. The Chronicles of Narnia became the topic of my master’s thesis. Peter Pan is, in my opinion, one of the most profound novels ever written. Anne of Green Gables is an unparalleled delight. Little Women and The Secret Garden are replete with practical wisdom and morality. Carry On, Mr. Bowditch is an essential tale of perseverance and a hunger for an education. I still appreciate Nietzsche’s writings, including his prophetic foresight that a moral system severed from its theistic roots couldn’t last, but I also appreciate my mother’s sagacity in introducing me to the world of children’s classics, which provided wisdom and a wholesome break from this often bleak world. Recently there has been a wonderful renewal of interest in the classics. Many are interested in reading books their schools failed to teach them. Podcasts centering on the classics such as Oxford scholar Spencer Klavan’s Young Heretics have gained thousands of followers. While this is all great, it is easy to be caught up, as I once was, in only reading books that make one seem “smart.” Sadly, this means children’s literature is often passed over. After all, it’s less likely that reading Little House on the Prairie will impress academic crowds the same way reading War and Peace or Plato’s Phaedo will. It’s Not to Late to Discover Children’s Literature Despite the lack of attention from scholars, there is a growing movement maintaining that education should teach the heart as well as the mind. Homeschool curriculums such as The Good and the Beautiful, Well-Educated Heart, and Simply Charlotte Mason focus on building children’s characters by exposing them to beautiful, wholesome art and literature. But adults should nurture their hearts and characters as well. Reading children’s literature is an effective but often overlooked way to do this. As intellectually stimulating and beneficial as classics for adults are, it’s no secret that they often tend to be depressing. While literature can confront dark realities in meaningful, insightful ways, repeatedly reading titles such as Tess of the d’Urbervilles can eventually become emotionally taxing. At times it is refreshing to read something innocent yet substantial. Treating oneself to a book like Peter Pan, with its whimsical sense of humor but thought-provoking meditations on growing up, can be a great way to continue to think and learn while taking a break from heavy material. C. S. Lewis wrote, “Since it is so likely that [children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.” While much of adult novels feature cruel enemies, children’s literature is robust with optimism. The need for uplifting messages and heroes is often overlooked. Adults need them as much as children do. (READ MORE: Practicing Virtue Will Definitely Make You Happier) Unfortunately, a lot of us missed out on literature that could be formative as children. But it’s not too late. When constructing your reading list, don’t limit yourself to erudite works that’ll impress your peers, and season it with some good children’s literature. Meg Marie Johnson graduated with her master’s in English at BYU. She writes adaptations of classics for children and young adult social satire. The post <i>Little House on the Prairie</i> Changed My Life appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

While the White House claims it is committed to strengthening American jobs and manufacturing through foreign investment and shifting supply chains to allies, its actions tell a different story. It’s a story where the political demands of reelection reign supreme, and in the case of the Nippon Steel proposal to acquire U.S. Steel, it is acceptable to rig the regulatory process that oversees such foreign investments (the national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS) to meet the demands of the United Steelworkers union, which opposes the deal. President Biden even went so far as to tell a gathering of United Steelworkers earlier this year that since “U.S. Steel has been an iconic American company for more than a century…it should remain a totally American company. American owned, American operated, by American union steelworkers — the best in the world. And that’s going to happen — I promise you.” (READ MORE: Trump to Speak at Tech Conference in a Political Landmark for Cryptocurrency) And why wouldn’t the president make such a promise? Never mind the specific “Exon-Florio” provision of CFIUS’ authorizing laws that commercial investment transactions should be evaluated “free from political considerations,” the president still made those statements knowing full well the Chair of CFIUS is his own treasury secretary, whom he can fire whenever he wants since she “serves at the pleasure and will of the President,” a presidential power the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld. Whether serving as Treasury Secretary or CFIUS Chair, Ms. Yellen knows who her boss is, and who signs her paycheck. The Biden Administration Is Sacrificing Security for Personal Gain Naturally, the frosting on the cake is that within a week of the first statement by the president, the United Steelworkers endorsed President Biden for reelection. After Biden withdrew from the race, the United Steelworkers were quick to endorse Kamala Harris. She has yet to comment on the U.S. Steel-Nippon deal, but no doubt faces pressure from organized labor to oppose it. These actions aren’t about U.S. national security, they are about the economic and political authority of powerful unions. At the same time as all this was going on, the Biden administration wisely held a “trilateral defense summit” with Japan and the Philippines to respond to the rising Chinese aggression both towards the Philippines in the South China Sea and towards Japan in the East China Sea. Why then does the Biden administration inexplicably seek to torpedo the Nippon Steel proposal to acquire U.S. Steel? The fact is, in other areas of national security, like American shipyards, the Biden administration sees no national security threat to Asian allies acquiring U.S. industries. Hanwha, a South Korean company, recently agreed to purchase the Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, already owned by a Norwegian company. Hanwha specifically sought out this opportunity after being encouraged by Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro who said “Hanwha’s acquisition of Philly Shipyard is a game-changing milestone in our new Maritime Statecraft.” The deal, like the U.S. Steel acquisition, is subject to CFIUS review. (READ MORE: What a Real ‘Pro-Worker’ GOP Would Look Like) But with U.S. Steel, the Biden administration undermines similar investment in that same Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from a strong and key Asian ally. Regardless, this is a ridiculous contradiction on the part of the Biden administration. Does the right hand in the White House even know what the left hand is doing? Japan Is a National Security Ally. It Should be Treated As Such in Steel Deal. The political abuse of the CFIUS review system reflects a lack of strategic focus while establishing a disturbing precedent of prioritizing politics over the nation’s security. More importantly for U.S. national security, the U.S. Steel–Nippon Steel deal is a unique opportunity to form a strategic counterbalance to China’s dominance of the steel industry. Currently, six of the world’s 10 largest steel producers are Chinese — including the world’s largest, state-owned China Baowu Group. Nippon Steel is the fourth largest steel company in the world, but its acquisition of U.S. Steel would catapult it to the second largest. The creation of a close, free-world competitor to the China Baowu Group would be a positive development for competing with China in a critical industry with reach into many sectors of the economy. That is also why the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) issued a recent report recommending that the U.S. develop stronger trade relations and encourage investments with allies like Japan. The report suggests adding Japan to the “whitelist” of Excepted Foreign States, making it easier — not harder — for foreign investment deals like the Nippon Steel–U.S. Steel deal to clear CFIUS review. (READ MORE: How to Pay for Trump’s Tax Cuts) The U.S. government has recognized Japan as the fundamental national security ally it is in countering the CCP, both through public- and private-sector partnerships. The president shouldn’t put any U.S. national security interests, such as the foreign investment by Nippon Steel in U.S. Steel, under the control of a small interest group. Bob Carey was a national security advisor to two U.S. Senators, a Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, and a Senior Executive in the Department of Defense. He is also a retired Naval Officer and Executive Director of the National Defense Committee. The post Steel Deal With Japanese Company is in America’s Best Interest appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance’s proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness. And you know what? That’s precisely what our tax code already does, in this case, and many others. The Tax Base Should Be Broad and Should Pay Little Using the tax code to “reward” parents and “punish” nonparents is at odds with the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives. Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all sorts of behaviors based on what government officials decide is good or bad. (READ MORE: When Grandparents Are Called to Parent) For instance, the tax code does, in fact, treat people without kids more favorably than it treats those who do have kids. There’s the child tax credit, of course. Then there’s the earned income tax credit, which is more generous for families with children than those without. And there is no shortage of other provisions, such as a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for dependent care, which do the same thing. It’s hard to know what Vance’s proposal really entails. Does he want another surtax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit and make it a universal basic income like many conservatives and progressives want? It’s also unclear whether he is simply failing to see that our tax code already delivers on his wishes and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he is well-intentioned and that he is rightfully concerned about the decline in fertility we are witnessing not just in this country but across the world. Tax Incentives Don’t Lead to More Kids Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with additional taxes wouldn’t boost fertility. For one thing, we’ve had a child tax credit since the 1990s and the tax break has been regularly extended. That hasn’t encouraged people to have more kids. That’s not unique to the child tax credit. Lots of evidence exists showing that government programs of all sorts meant to encourage, reward, or stimulate the supply of babies usually fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent over $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates are still falling. (READ MORE: Yes, We Need a National Conversation on Dating, Family Life and Economics) There isn’t any doubt that more people, and hence more babies, are a boon for our lives and our economy. But that alone isn’t a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising kids is expensive, that’s no justification for a government tax break, either. Besides, careful studies have shown the cost of raising a child in America has been decreasing for six decades. In the end, rather than rewarding families with lesser taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers — like overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making kids measurably safer — that make life more complicated for families. Ultimately, these are only secondary aspects of a much bigger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It’s not just childless adults that face a surcharge compared to parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean that renters pay more money for the same amount of housing. Households which include a college student pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can secure a tax break that others cannot. These tax breaks for some are not just unfair to the taxpayers who don’t get them — they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that requires many millions of collective hours to comply with. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction — toward a simpler, flatter, and more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally. (READ MORE: Kamala’s Pee-wee Herman Strategy) Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is misguided. It leads to economic inefficiencies and infringes on individual liberty. Rather than doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to see taxes as something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post JD Vance and the Bipartisan Itch to Tax Behavior appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Is Nuclear the Tortoise to the Wind and Solar Hare?

Undermining Justice: The Perils of Biden's Supreme Court Reforms

Five Lies That Democrats and the Media Will Use to Rewrite History for Kamala Harris