It didn’t take long for the tweeters to notice this New York Times book-review headline and insist it was the Real Deal, even if it seems like too bizarre for the Babylon Bee: To Topple the Patriarchy, These Women Have Sex With Vegetables Times book reviewer Sadie Stein underlined that this might be the next book that public librarians will champion as a “free speech” moment to influence your children: Let’s start with the content warnings. Hexes of the Deadwood Forest, the best-selling Polish author Agnieszka Szpila’s first book to be translated into English, includes the following: adult themes, adult content, adult language, violence, suicide, sexual assault, torture, murder, genocide, bestiality, cruelty to children, sex with moss, sex with grass, sex with mushrooms, sex with lichens, sex with feathers, sex with rotten vegetables and sex with frozen dirt. Your final warning? All this gets weirdly tedious. Europeans can be deeply weird people. The plot is something like this: “In a wealthy suburb of Warsaw, the monstrous C.E.O. of an equally monstrous oil company, Anna Frenza,” was living the dream of success. “But when Frenza is who goes viral for passionate, painful sexual congress with the trunk of an oak tree, she’s thrown into a mental hospital.” Transported by either psychosis or mystical connection to the 16th-century Silesian ecclesiastical duchy of Neisse, Anna finds herself inhabiting the body of Mathilde Spalt, leader of the Earthen Ones, a pagan sect devoted to replacing patriarchal penetrative sex with a devotion to Nature…. Back in her present-day psych ward, Anna/Mathilde rallies her fellow inmates (mostly troublesome feminists or environmentalists) against what the narrator calls “a Polish Gilead, but without any of the well-tailored red dresses and cloaks.” Since this uber-horny phantasmagoria is populated almost exclusively by grotesques — not merely the universally hideous men, but also women characterized only by their Valerie Solanas-level fundamentalism — by the novel’s end, the reader begins to understand the appeal of inanimate moss (if not bark). Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968 and was institutionalized for several years.  None of this sounds like a book you'd like to read over a weekend. But that’s not to say that Stein doesn’t love the book. This is the last paragraph: “I thank all women who, in their fight for equal rights and the well-being of our planet, are not afraid to use their madness as a political weapon,” the author writes in the acknowledgments. By these standards, this novel certainly deserves all the plaudits.

At the end of Friday’s Inside Politics with Dana Bash, there was a brief documentary feature from CNN’s John King, the former host of the show, from North Carolina, as he pushed Democrats to find voters in rural America. The segment acted as a lesson to Democrats, as the King segment made brief jokes about Democrats while he promoted rural-acting Democratic candidates. King reported from areas of western North Carolina hit hard by Hurricane Helene in 2024, with most of the segments off the farm taking place in Marshall, North Carolina. King introduced a farmer and voter, Ed Winebarger, who had a harsh reality for Democrats as he worked on a farm with his hands in dirt: “This right here, getting it under your fingernails. Democrats have a hard time with this. They can't show a connection to the working class.” At the end of Friday's Inside Politics, former host John King highlighted Democratic losses in Rural voters by going to western North Carolina. The segment acted as a lesson to Democrats from King, as the segment made brief jokes and promoted rural Democratic candidates. pic.twitter.com/4yccEAuhCX — Nick (@nspin310) April 10, 2026   King framed the Iran War as an economic hurt for rural North Carolina. He described how Democrats have lost much of the rural vote across the entire country since Jimmy Carter’s election: Here are 1322 counties where at least 75 percent of the population live in rural areas. 50 years ago, 1976, Jimmy Carter carried 798 of the 1322.  (...) And in 2024, a rural red tsunami. Kamala Harris won just 79 of the 1322 counties and just 25 percent of their votes. The then and now is stunning. Winebarger connected the Democratic losses to “anger” and said rural Americans “feel represented by that anger.” To end, King connected the reconstruction from Helene to the possible bud of growth for Democrats in the midterms if they court rural voters: “18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/QmgXpNiLpQ — Nick (@nspin310) April 10, 2026   King pushed for more Democratic outreach to rural voters, as he shared it would put more states in play and listed dream pickups for Democrats that they have yearned for years, with little success: Again, be skeptical, but even a modest rural rebound for the Democrats would greatly expand their map, their targets, the possibilities in this critical midterm year. House races here in North Carolina, for example, and in places like Texas, Montana, Iowa, and elsewhere. Another voter, Josh Copus, described as helping his old friend run for Congress in North Carolina's 11th District against GOP Rep. Chuck Edwards, said Democrats “have lost their way” and need to run people like his friend Jamie, “because he is off this place, like he is our people.” To end, King connected the reconstruction after Hurricane Helene to the possible bud of growth for Democrats in 2026 midterms if they court rural voters: “18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats.” The rural voters of America have been ignored and, sometimes, attacked by Democrats for years, as it reminds of a book promoted on MS NOW (then MSNBC) titled White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. It was difficult to gain voters when they were called racist and threats to democracy. Nevertheless, John King has taken to the moment to promote Democrats in rural America and push national Democrats to the same. It is interesting how so many journalists fall into Democrats' dreams of winning elections in mostly rural states, like the dream of a blue Texas as seen in previous media surges for Beto O’Rourke and the current media push of James Talarico. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN’s Inside Politics w/ Dana Bash April 10, 2026 12:48:00 PM Eastern DANA BASH: The North Carolina Senate race is one of the seats Democrats are really pushing to turn blue in this year's midterms, but they're going to need to win back the rural voters who have abandoned the party during the trump era. CNN's John King went to North Carolina for his latest installment of “All Over the Map.” (...) 12:48:56 PM Eastern JOHN KING: The fall harvest will be not long before the midterm election, and North Carolina has a Senate seat within reach for the Democrats. Plus, maybe, just maybe, a House seat or two. But Weinberger sees the party as still missing a critical ingredient. ED WINEBARGER (NORTH CAROLINA VOTER): This right here, getting it under your fingernails. Democrats have a hard time with this. They can't show a connection to the working class. KING: Rural America is synonymous with Trump Country. But Weinberger says Trump policies are making a tough economy worse. First tariffs, now Iran. (...) 12:49:50 PM Eastern KING: North Carolina's success could help the Democrats make a good midterm year great. But it would require reversing five decades of rural decline. Take a look.  Here are 1322 counties where at least 75 percent of the population live in rural areas. 50 years ago, 1976, Jimmy Carter carried 798 of the 1322. See all that blue, and won 54 percent of the vote in them. In 2000, though, Al Gore carried only 213 of the 1322. His share of the vote in rural counties dropped to 37 percent. And in 2024, a rural red tsunami. Kamala Harris won just 79 of the 1322 counties and just 25 percent of their votes. The then and now is stunning. Here in North Carolina, that rural shift from blue to red looks like this. It's been 11 years since North Carolina was represented by a Democrat in the U.S. Senate. And the state's House delegation in Washington, right now, just four Democrats and ten Republicans. WINEBARGER: There's a lot of anger with, uh, with the voting base. And America has traditionally gone after the angry candidate. They feel represented by that anger. Democrats need to do more to connect rural America. KING: Again, be skeptical, but even a modest rural rebound for the Democrats would greatly expand their map, their targets, the possibilities in this critical midterm year. House races here in North Carolina, for example, and in places like Texas, Montana, Iowa, and elsewhere.  And the party is hoping to find Senate pickups, U.S. Senate pickups. Where would they look? Texas, Ohio, Alaska, Montana, Iowa, and right here in North Carolina. (...) 12:53:55 PM Eastern KING: So, why do Democrats struggle so much here? JOSH COPUS (NORTH CAROLINA VOTER): I think we lost our way. I don't know, like we got caught up doing something that didn't connect with the people in rural America. And that's why we need to run candidates like Jamie, because he is of this place, like he is our people. So, I don't think it's a lost cause. (...) 12:54:47 PM Eastern COPUS: I get it, you know, I know why people like voted for Trump around here because, you know, everyone feels like it's stacked against them. But that hasn't changed like that. I don't think any of those people are like, oh, we're doing better now than we were because we're not. KING: 18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats. John King, CNN. Marshall, North Carolina. (...)

On Thursday First Lady Melania Trump shocked just about everyone with a nearly six-minute statement to the media at the White House, where she denounced what she called, "Lies linking me to Jeffrey Epstein," calling them "mean-spirited and attempts to defame my reputation," and also calling for Congress to hold hearings with Epstein's victims. Of course the left wing media almost immediately started questioning her motives for the announcement, while misrepresenting what she said, as was the case on CNN's The Arena: Saturday. CNN host Kasie Hunt and her panel either did not know about, or purposely left important context out of the segment. In July of last year, Michael Wolff -- the author of several trashy anti-Trump books that CNN celebrated in Trump's first term -- claimed that Melania Trump was involved in Epstein's social circle before her marriage to Donald Trump, and that's how she met her future husband. A month later, Hunter Biden also claimed that the couple met via Epstein connections. In September, Melania's lawyers had stepped in and there were several retractions of that story as a result. Last October, Wolff sued Melania, over her alleged threat to sue him over his claims.  Not only was none of the above mentioned on The Arena, but Hunt also left out the very reveling opening words of Trump's statement when playing a clip. MELANIA CLIP: I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell.... . I am not Epstein's victim Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump....I have never had any knowledge of Epstein's abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity. Trump's missing first few words made very clear why she felt the need to speak out. "The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect.  I do not object to their ignorance, but rather, I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation." After choosing not to provide  Trump's clear explanation, Hunt speculated on why she chose now to speak out, and then played a Fox News clip from the First Lady's senior advisor, Marc Beckman. BECKMAN CLIP: Enough is enough. This has been ongoing and it's time for the public to refocus their attention on what achievements our first lady has done. She's helping people over and over again. We want to focus the attention on her good work and what she's accomplished as First Lady of the United States.  CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams was then asked to weigh in, and seemingly did not grasp what Beckman had just said. He just played up the "huge political vulnerability" for Trump. WILLIAMS: Now, what's remarkable here is the First Lady's advisor there saying enough is enough. Now, trafficking victims, survivors, sex assault victims are probably the one constituency in America that no one has an appetite for saying enough is enough around their handling. So the idea that they thought this was a good idea to send him out there to try to clear the First Lady's name, is even compounding the issue even worse. Beckman was obviously talking about the accusations against Melania when he said enough is enough, not about the victims of Epstein. In fact Trump called for Congressional hearings with the victims, to take place. But the most bizarre analysis was yet to come from CNN contributor Xochitl Hinojosa.     HINOJOSA: If you're trying to get ahead of something like a story or a book or something, of shoe is going to drop, that is going to be pretty bad for Melania Trump. You have now just given that story even more oxygen, and you have given that story even more credibility as the First Lady is coming out. What is the logic behind saying that? If Trump is aware of a false accusation or story on the horizon, how can a fair and impartial person interpret a blanket denial in advance as anything other than being forthright and exhibiting confidence in her innocence? But it's CNN, and they want to imply that professions of innocence equal guilt, and that professing your innocence only makes everything worse for you. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Vanity Fair -- where the TDS level is so high that they actually wrote an overanalytical piece trying to figure out if South Park is sufficiently anti-Trump -- has just sunk what little credibility it had even lower by AGAIN performing over-the-top hype about the former royal couple, Harry & Meghan, that very few normal people have expressed any interest in. The former royal couple lost their "Sussex" title due to an inability to perform one of the easiest jobs on the planet, which consisted primarily of politely greeting people and not acting like complete jerks. The latter part of the job description appears to have been too much of a burden for the couple to accept, thus resulting in them become a pair of pathetic grifters constantly on the make for entertainment deals which would earn them maximum money with the least effort. The hype for the ingrate couple deservedly stripped of their royal ranks has been at fever pitch on the pages of Vanity Fair for several years. However, the latest incarnation promoting the deadbeats was so absurd as to result in hype on steroids as you can see in the Tuesday slobbering puff piece, "A Complete List of Meghan and Harry’s Creative Projects, From Documentaries to Unrealized Podcasts." The staffer who apparently drew the short straw and was stuck with this assignment was Erin Vanderhoof. Her latest effort is not to be confused with her March 27 tongue bath filled with deep concern over a couple few really care about, "Harry and Meghan’s Hollywood Dreams Hit a Speed Bump, but With Love, Meghan Isn’t Dead at Netflix Yet." Yes, hardly  a month goes by without Vanity Fair insistently promoting the couple. In fact, why wait a month because less than three weeks before that last effort, they published "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Headed To Australia" on March 8. Vanity Fair might as well call themselves the "Harry & Meghan" magazine. One wonders what sort of "incentive" exists for this level of over coverage. In any case, the latest Harry & Meghan SlobberFest perfectly illustrates the absurd adoration extended to them by Vanity Fair which knocks their credibility from almost none down to less than zero. Vanderhoof seems to think the public needs to read about all the projects Harry & Meghan have been involved in (and even projects they haven't been involved in) starting with their Netflix shticks which appear to be about mercifully terminated: Harry & Meghan (2022, six episodes) Live to Lead (2022, seven episodes) Heart of Invictus (2023, five episodes) Polo (2024, five episodes) Please stop. Masaka Kids, a Rhythm Within (2025, 40-minute documentary) With Love, Meghan (2025, two eight-episode seasons and a holiday special) The reader has been spared the loving reviews Vanderhoof provided each of these Netflix projects but if you are a glutton for punishment you can read the full reviews at Vanity Fair. Vanderhoof bizarrely thinks interest in Harry & Meghan is so intense that the public would actually be interested in projects the couple haven't even attempted yet. I kid you not. Pearl (announced 2021, canceled 2022) Untitled “Sociopath Podcast” (never announced) Meet Me at the Lake The Wedding Date Untitled Archewell-Netflix Polo Drama And, yes, more background information than you would ever care about is provided for each of these non-projects at Vanity Fair. What Erin Vanderhoof and Vanity Fair don't seem to realize is that outside of their small liberal celebrity bubble, most people don't give a damn about the former Sussexes. In fact, there was really only one time the public in general really did enjoy a performance by the heavily hyped pair when they appeared (sort of) in South Park's "Worldwide Privacy Tour." Enjoy!

Smug and lazy journalism was on display in Friday’s New York Times, in “climate policy” reporter Maxine Joselow’s contemptuous account of the Heartland Institute’s International Climate Change Conference, held in Washington, D.C. Joselow used loaded and dismissive language to characterize the attendees, many of who were scientists, who dared to believe the world wasn’t in a climate crisis, accusing them of “climate denial,” whatever that could mean: “Climate Change Denial Sees a Resurgence in Trump’s Washington.” The first sarcastic paragraph was certainly not something you read ever day in the paper. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by “leftist politicians.” Fossil fuels are the greenest energy sources. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be harmless. As if liberals like population doomsayer Paul Ehrlich, or former Vice President Al Gore (who had no environmental academic credentials) and his ballyhooed environmental 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, didn't make dire predictions of disastrous consequence -- all of which embarrassingly failed to pan out. Yet Joselow was serenely confident that the doomsaying side of the warming controversy was the only possible correct one. These were some of the false claims made at a conference on Wednesday held by groups that reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. What might have seemed like a fringe event in years past this time boasted a prominent keynote speaker: Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and one of President Trump’s possible choices for the next attorney general. The Times constantly found the most hostile label to place on those who don't see a looming climate crisis. The event made clear that climate change deniers are experiencing a triumphant resurgence in Mr. Trump’s Washington after years of feeling sidelined by the scientific and political establishments. A vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and that it is caused by burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal. They expect average global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels within the next decade, unleashing dire impacts that include more deadly heat waves, coastal floods, water shortages and crop failures. …. The event was organized by the Heartland Institute, a research organization that says it promotes free-market solutions and that has attacked mainstream climate science for decades. Other sponsors included the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit group that claims falsely that planet-warming carbon dioxide is beneficial to humans. The influence of both groups waned under the Biden administration, which embraced the science behind climate change and pushed policies designed to address it. Mr. Zeldin’s appearance at the conference underscored how the groups’ sway has grown in the Trump era. The criticisms became truly loopy at times, with a throwaway line faulting the lunchtime portion of the talk for serving "a relatively carbon-intensive lunch of roasted chicken breast, cannellini bean ragù and ricotta cheesecake." The bad faith portrayals continued into the very last line. The conference was set to continue on Thursday with a speech by John Clauser, a Nobel physics laureate who has claimed, falsely, that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet. Criticizing the unearned certitude of Joselow’s write-up, the Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman pointed out “there seems to be some support for the view that clouds have a cooling effect given their ability to reflect sunlight back into space, though different types of clouds have different effects and clouds can also trap heat on the planet’s surface.” Freeman suggested she “may have been under the initial impression that [physics laureate Clauser] hadn’t studied" clouds because of an ensuing correction to the story: “An earlier version of this article misstated a distinction held by the physicist John Clauser. He has received a Nobel Prize, not a Pulitzer Prize.”