UK Special Coverage Labour’s War on UK Pubs Safetyism and political correctness are destroying a British institution. UK Special Coverage “When you have lost your inns,” warned writer Hilaire Belloc over 100 years ago, “drown your empty selves. For you have lost the heart of England.” A century later, his message could not be more pertinent. Since the beginning of this year, roughly four pubs have permanently closed their doors every day. By the end of 2026, something like 540 pubs could shut for good.  For this British institution, no help can be expected to come from the current Labour government. In her Autumn Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that Covid-era business rates relief will end in April this year, having previously been scaled back from 75 percent to 40 percent. Pubs unable to cope with the higher rates will be forced to close—something that has seen many Labour MPs being barred from their locals. Although Reeves did recently walk back the business rate increase and announce a temporary support package for struggling pubs, many landlords fear this will not be enough.  After all, this is not the only battle currently being fought by weary publicans across the country. Employer National Insurance contributions, alcohol duty, and minimum wage have all recently been increased, making the running of a pub prohibitively expensive. To make matters worse, the government recently announced that it was planning to cut the blood alcohol limit in half, from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood to 50mg per 100ml. That would make having just one pint potentially criminal—and it would disproportionately impact rural pubs that rely on customers driving to and from them. None of this is to mention the fact that it’s becoming increasingly expensive to drink and eat out at all, with more and more customers, particularly young people, skipping after-work or weekend pints due to the extortionate cost of living.  It’s not just a financial war that’s being waged against the pub. Its very character, too, is under attack. As of October this year, pub landlords will also have to worry about the so-called ‘banter ban’ being implemented by the Employment Rights Act of 2025. This makes employers liable for harassment by third parties (in this case, customers) while working. Unsurprisingly for any piece of legislation cooked up by Keir Starmer’s Labour government, “harassment” can essentially boil down to nothing more than overhearing an “offensive” conversation or banter between patrons. As such, landlords would effectively be forced to police customers’ speech, in case it crosses that line.  Turning the pub into a kind of panopticon, where punters and publicans alike are constantly afraid that an off-color joke might land them in legal trouble, undermines its nature and purpose. It violates the spirit of the pub—a place that ought to be the natural home of free assembly and free speech of all kinds.   It is for perhaps this reason that the pub so regularly draws the ire of the political classes. Those who would consider themselves our “betters” are horrified at the vulgarity and commonness of this British institution. Historically, taverns, inns, and alehouses acted as meeting places for radicals and anti-government conspirators. From the planning of election campaigns and revolts to being the target of the anti-alcohol temperance movement of the 19th century, pubs were often deeply political. Indeed, the infamous November 5 Gunpowder Plot—the failed attempt by English Catholics to blow up King James I and Parliament in 1605—was hatched and finalized in various taverns across London.  Even today, the pub remains central to the British way of life, no matter how much our politicians may look down their noses at it. It might be difficult for non-British readers (or at least, those who have not spent a great deal of time in the UK) to understand how central the pub is to our cultural fabric and our identity. They are not simply places to buy food and drink; they are a fundamental part of many communities, and act as centers to bring people together. Whether your tipple of choice is a trendy craft beer, a traditional stout, or—Heaven forbid—an Aperol spritz, the pub offers a place of refuge for people from all walks of life. A good pub has less in common with a bar, club, or restaurant and more with a sitting room. It is somewhere comfortable, informal, and familiar.  The long shadow of the temperance movement still hovers over the pub today. It now adopts the language of wellbeing and “self-care” rather than that of religion, with measures like minimum unit pricing, already in place in Scotland and Wales and mooted in England under the guise of concern for public health and shielding the NHS from mass alcoholism. Moderate drinkers, therefore, are punished for a problem they have no part in.   If not an obsession over health, then the modern “teetotalitarian” impulse comes from good old-fashioned killjoyism. At any moment, pubs can have their licenses revoked over noise complaints. This is particularly a problem in London, where pubs are closing at a faster rate than most other cities in the country, and landlords are at the mercy of local residents—even in busy areas like Soho and Shoreditch, which are renowned for their nightlife. Pubs can be closed due to a few angry letters, if word gets out that punters dared to raise their voices past 10pm on a Saturday. This is the fate that almost befell George Orwell’s favorite pub, the Compton Arms in Islington, which was threatened in 2022 by the local council that it must quiet down or close its doors. It was apparently irrelevant that the pub has been operating since 1800, hundreds of years before any of the current residents were even born, and offers a very civilized-sounding “seasonally led” “small-plates menu”—hardly a wild nightclub. Nonetheless, the Compton Arms was considered simply too rowdy for some puritanical locals. Thankfully, the pub ultimately survived its brush with death.  The Labour Party may not be all that bothered by the death of one of Britain’s most beloved institutions, but Reform UK is. Earlier this month, party leader Nigel Farage and Reform MP Lee Anderson launched the party’s Save Our Pubs campaign. At its core is a five-point plan to ease the tax and regulatory burden on landlords and cut costs across the hospitality sector. Crucially, Reform’s plan treats pubs as something more than just businesses. Rather, they are the beating hearts of many communities and a part of our national heritage. That is exactly the right instinct. Each pub that permanently closes its doors is a blow to a uniquely British institution.  Belloc was right. When Britain loses a pub, it loses a piece of itself. If politicians refuse to stop taxing, regulating, and moralizing our locals out of existence, voters will back those who will. It’s high time that we called last orders on those destroying our pubs. The post Labour’s War on UK Pubs appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Trump Is Right About Netflix’s Political Bias The company’s board member Susan Rice seeks anti-Trump revenge. President Donald Trump recently demanded Netflix fire Susan Rice from its board. “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,” the commander in chief wrote in a Truth Social post. “She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack!” Trump unleashed this fusillade against Rice in response to the former Obama official saying she wanted “accountability” for corporate interests that “bend the knee” to the president’s agenda. On a recent podcast, Rice threatened If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another thing coming. Rice strongly implied a Democratic administration would use all its powers to punish these entities—and that creates a real headache for Netflix.  The streaming giant is currently trying to get its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery approved by the government. However, the proposed merger has faced staunch opposition from conservatives, who allege the company is too woke to acquire a larger share of the entertainment market. Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos insists that the merger is “not a political deal.” But Rice’s comments add further evidence that the company is political—and not favorable to conservatives. The former national security advisor is just one example of Netflix’s commitment to liberalism, and of why conservatives are right to be suspicious of it gaining more power over what they watch. Rice joined Netflix’s board in 2018, despite having no experience in the entertainment world. What she did have is a lengthy record of serving in Democratic administrations, extending all the way back to Bill Clinton’s tenure. But that experience is why Netflix hired her, according to a press release the company published eight years ago. “For decades, she has tackled difficult, complex global issues with intelligence, integrity and insight and we look forward to benefiting from her experience and wisdom,” it said. Netflix was even generous enough to reserve her board spot for her when she went into the Biden administration. It was waiting for her as soon as she left the White House in 2023.  The streaming giant has a real thing for Obama alumni. That shouldn’t be a surprise, considering Sarandos and company co-founder Reed Hastings were both huge donors to the 44th president. Hastings is considered one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors. His call for Biden to step aside in 2024 was noted by major media outlets. In that campaign, he gave $7 million to a Kamala Harris Super PAC. The political bias at top is no secret. The company established a reputation for providing welfare for prominent Democrats. Besides Rice, Netflix signed a multiyear production deal with the Obamas. Like Rice, the 44th president and his wife had no entertainment experience. But Netflix still gave them an undisclosed amount (rumored to be for over $50 million) to make content for the streaming platform. It was very generous for Netflix to offer a golden parachute for the former president as he left the White House—something no Republican could ever expect to receive. It would be one thing if Netflix just rewarded prominent Democrats with exorbitant production deals and plum board positions. The company could say it keeps itself non-partisan through its programming. But that’s not the case. As plenty of Republicans have made clear, Netflix is one of the nation’s wokest entertainment companies. Republican senators Josh Hawley, Eric Schmitt, and Ted Cruz assailed Netflix at a hearing earlier this month over its LGBT children’s programming and deep commitment to DEI. At the hearing, Sarandos tried to argue that his company didn’t have a political agenda when it comes to its programming, claiming it features movies and shows from all across the political spectrum. GOP lawmakers made short work of that dubious assertion. The Susan Rice matter is particularly bad for Netflix’s case to GOP lawmakers and the Trump admin. Here is a leader of the company relishing the prospect of weaponizing the federal government to go after anyone who followed the Trump administration’s directives on DEI and other matters. By not firing her, Netflix is essentially endorsing that position. It’s also not a fringe opinion. It was endorsed by powerful Democratic operative Marc Elias in a column this week. The op-ed could win a gold medal in lack of self-awareness. Elias, like Rice, longs for a future where Democrats can punish companies and universities that worked with the Trump admin—while concluding that Netflix needs to stand up to Trump’s “despotic demand” to fire Rice. He advocates for Democrats doing far worse than what Trump called for, but still insists that he’s standing up for democracy and free expression. “Trump’s attack on Rice is, in its own way, a gift,” he wrote. “It has given Netflix a clear and public opportunity to do what dozens of other institutions have declined to do: stand up, say no and demonstrate that not every pillar of civil society is too weak and too lacking in self-respect to face Trump’s threats with resolve.” In reality, standing by Rice would signal that Netflix wants the left to embrace authoritarian governance when it gains power and thoroughly punish the right. At the same time, the company would still have the audacity to demand the Justice Department approve of its merger with Warner Bros. and accept its flimsy argument that it isn’t political at all. If Netflix wants to prove it isn’t political, it should fire Rice for tarnishing its brand. If it doesn’t, that would vindicate conservative critics and their desire to block the Warner merger. Of course, one shouldn’t bet on Sarandos and Hastings doing the right thing. They’re too devoted to liberalism to undermine one of their own. The post Trump Is Right About Netflix’s Political Bias appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs In Iran, Trump’s Luck Runs Out Operation Epic Fiasco has punctured his mystique. You can’t say The American Conservative didn’t warn you. We’ve done everything in our power to stop this dumb war against Iran short of flying a big white banner above our DC office building that says Don’t do it, Mr. President—disaster awaits! (And that’s only because the landlord won’t let us go out on the roof.) Now that President Donald Trump has launched the dumb war and courted the disaster, we’re not about to start waving the white flag of political surrender. Our updated position: Get out fast, Mr. President—or the disaster will worsen! Trump’s never been inclined to fixate on the potential downsides of bold action, nor to admit mistakes, nor even to see himself as subject, like the rest of us, to the caprice of nature’s God. That’s been especially true of Trump’s persona since his attempted assassination in July 2024, when a slight turn of the head meant an incoming bullet nicked his right ear rather than obliterating his skull. In his inaugural address, Trump declared that “I was saved by God to make America great again.” In his second term, Trump’s cabinet members and enthusiastic supporters have tended to see him as a quasi-mystical being whose political and financial success bespeaks a preternatural ability to rack up victories and defeat enemies. The perception intensified following the successful military raid in Venezuela this January, when U.S. special forces abducted then-President Nicolas Maduro and made Trump look like a masterful commander-in-chief. Trump himself still holds that perception, judging by a recent exchange on ABC News between host George Stephanopoulos and correspondent Jonathan Karl: Stephanopoulos: The president promised to keep the United States out of foreign wars, but at this point, no modern president has ordered more military strikes against more countries than Donald Trump. Karl: I have to tell you George, I spoke to the president, and he sounded to me like a president who feels invincible…. He told me, “Nobody could have done this but me, and you know that.” In fact, George, he suggested that the success in Venezuela made him less likely to accept concessions in Iran that were offered in the final round of talks. Evidently, Trump still feels he’s got the Midas touch, that he’s a geopolitical savant who can eliminate the dastardly Islamic Republic and bring “freedom” to Iranians—his professed top priority in launching the war, according to the Washington Post.  But the results of the combat operations thus far don’t inspire confidence that a golden age is dawning in the Middle East. Indeed, after the joint U.S.–Israeli attack began early Saturday, Tehran started blowing up the Middle East, hitting U.S. bases as well as civilian and commercial targets. In airports and city centers and energy markets, mayhem ensued. That Iran wound up going Yosemite Sam on Arab countries was “the biggest surprise” of the war so far, Trump told CNN on Monday. Not really. As TAC repeatedly highlighted for months, Iran credibly threatened to ignite a regional conflagration if the U.S. and Israel attacked again, to increase the costs of continued fighting. Other not-really-surprising ramifications of the war have reached the American homeland. In Austin, Texas, a Senegalese-American gunman in clothes bearing an Iranian flag design and the words “Property of Allah” killed three and wounded over a dozen early Sunday. Permit me some leeway to speculate that this event was motivated by the new war. TAC warned in January that attacking Iran and killing its supreme leader could provoke terroristic events. Tragically—and, again, predictably—six American service members have already been killed in action at the time of writing. Or rather, at least six have been killed. To my mind, comments by Trump to the New York Times on Sunday suggested he was aware that the true number was likely higher than the public tally at that time, which was three. “If you look at projections, they do projections, it, you know, it could be quite a bit higher than that,” Trump said. Of course, decoding Trump’s statements has become more difficult since “Operation Epic Fury” began. In the same interview, Trump offered what the Times called “several seemingly contradictory visions” of a U.S. game plan for Iran’s political future: Perhaps Iran’s military would lay down their arms, or maybe the Iranian people would rise up and topple the government. Alternatively, the U.S. could implement the same template as in Venezuela, leaving the regime intact after taking out its top leader. The Venezuela template seems irrelevant now. Trump revealed this weekend that the White House had been talking to some potential partners in Tehran, but that the strikes killed them inadvertently. “Some of the people we were dealing with are gone, because that was a big—that was a big hit,” he told The Atlantic Sunday morning. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead,” he told ABC News. And more big hits are coming. “The big wave hasn’t even happened,” Trump said Monday morning. “The big one is coming soon.” Knocking the bejesus out of Iran is easy, and no one doubts the U.S. possesses enough air and sea power to escalate, but military action needs to serve a coherent political strategy—and so far, the administration hasn’t shown any signs of having formulated one. The devil-may-care attitude comes in part, I think, from a conviction that God is on America’s side. “We ask God to protect all of our heroes in harm’s way, and we trust that, with his help, the men and women of the armed forces will prevail,” Trump said in a Saturday morning video address. “We have the greatest in the world, and they will prevail.”  Quote-tweeting that video on X, the Fox News host and Israel-first blowhard Mark Levin wrote, “God bless our President and armed forces. And he will.” Perhaps Trump and Levin could learn something from the Mideast Muslims they feel no apparent compunction about bombing into bloody smithereens: God’s will cannot be taken for granted.  I myself hold somewhat complicated beliefs on this matter. I’ve never had trouble believing in God, but as for the idea that he loves us and cares about our affairs, well, that to me seems rather inconsistent with the facts. For example, this war kicked off with a missile strike on an all-girls elementary school in southern Iran. Around 200 souls were snuffed out. You can find images of tiny, blood-stained backpacks online. Am I to believe that God was too busy protecting Donald Trump and the State of Israel to save those little girls? What I do believe in is Machiavelli. In The Prince, the Florentine political realist shares his teachings on Fortuna, the Roman goddess of fate and luck. To beguile Fortuna and partake in her delights, Machiavelli writes, a statesman must be bold and aggressive, yes, but also prudent and strategic and discerning. Trump, in launching his dumb Iran war, has evinced none of the latter qualities. As a Machiavellian, therefore, I can assure you Trump’s luck ends here. The post In Iran, Trump’s Luck Runs Out appeared first on The American Conservative.

In the shadowy underbelly of 1930s Chicago, where jazz hums through rain-slick streets, and science defies death itself, a lonely, scarred giant seeks companionship in the most forbidden way. The Bride Review COMING SOON (seeing it early Friday) WOKE REPORT COMING SOONThe post The Bride first appeared on Worth it or Woke.

"Do the astro". The post What is the “astro” from the classic White Stripes track ‘Astro’? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"So I became Steve Cropper". The post “I learned”: The three guitarists Steve Cropper wanted to avoid sounding like first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

March 4, 1801

I Hate You More Than I Love Them

Fourth-Wave Feminism: Reform or Tsunami?

Accelerating the Fentanyl Fight