Is this just another cycle, or is it the END? Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics published an article this week about the so-called Socrates program and how [more…]
Category: blaze media
‘Expert witness’ humiliated in $61 million lawsuit after lawyers discover one insane detail
The hits just keep on coming in a recent court case that relied on expert testimony.
Lawsuits stemming from a 2020 industrial disaster have had plaintiffs, family members, and defendants pointing fingers at each other, with varying results. However, a discovery in one of the lawsuits turned everything on its head in a matter of just a couple of hours.
‘I have no idea how it works.’
Chat spat
The story comes from the Watson Grinding explosion that happened roughly six years ago in Houston, Texas.
A massive explosion killed three people and injured dozens, ABC 13 reported, due to faulty equipment. Federal authorities determined the explosion was caused by a “degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose” that leaked the flammable gas propylene throughout the building overnight.
Massive industrial company 3M was hired to inspect and maintain the gas detection systems that allegedly failed at Watson Grinding, leading to a huge lawsuit from victims against the company.
According to 404 Media, 3M hired one Josh Autenrieth from KnightHawk Engineering to prepare an expert witness report about the explosion. During questioning, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers noticed a document from the defense that appeared to have been AI generated, and according to the court transcript, he simply searched its content to find that Autenrieth’s ChatGPT prompts were all available online.
“Well, do you realize, sir, that your chat right now is still publicly available?” the lawyer says in the transcript.
“I have no idea how it works,” Autenrieth said in response.
The deposition was paused for three hours to gather all the prompts. This revealed a treasure trove of ChatGPT content that is still publicly available online, where Autenrieth had the AI develop his report nearly entirely.
“I am being retained as a professional expert witness by 3M in defense of them in their lawsuits,” the first prompt read. “I need to create an expert witness report to defend 3M’s standard of care for their work in calibrating and commissioning (return to operations / RTO) the iTrans gas detectors. I need to show that 3M met the standard of care and why.”
RELATED: Wi-Fi. Microwaves. Electromagnetism. It’s all connected — and so is the damage.
Prompt discovery
Shockingly, after uploading hundreds of documents for the chatbot to review, the user asked the AI to “show how 3M is 0% at fault for the explosion at watson grinding.”
Unsurprisingly, the report draft concluded that “3M met the applicable standard of care” and was “0% responsible for the January 24, 2020, explosion.”
Attorney Will Moye told 404 Media that the expert “relied on AI not as an assistive device, but exclusively relied on ChatGPT to form his opinions and write his report.”
“He acknowledged [at trial] the prompts he put in were biased toward 3M to help 3M win the case […] it’s really egregious,” Moye added.
It was also revealed through court documents that Autenrieth billed his company for at least 174 hours in the case. He said that he is salaried but that his work has a $475 per hour rate. This totals at least $82,650 of work.
RELATED: Harvard researchers just found out the dark truth about how to simulate the entire world
Ben Brewer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
AI OK
Nathan Knight, vice president of KnightHawk Engineering, told Blaze News in response that Autenrieth utilized AI as only a tool and stands behind his work. Knight further described isolated questions and excerpts from the trial as “fake news” that does not provide the complete story.
His comment, in full, is below:
AI is a tool that is used extensively in today’s work environment, and its use will continue to increase as technology advances. Mr. Autenrieth utilized this technology as a tool to assist in reviewing questions, arguments, and counterarguments related to the case. AI did not replace his engineering judgment. Mr. Autenrieth developed and presented his own professional opinions and stands behind those opinions.
What has been presented is a selective and negative snapshot that, without the complete context, can fairly be characterized as “Fake News.” Looking at isolated questions or excerpts does not tell the complete story of the analysis, the expert report, or what was ultimately presented in court.
The opposing side challenged Mr. Autenrieth’s qualifications and attempted to prevent him from offering his opinions. Those challenges were unsuccessful, and Mr. Autenrieth was permitted to testify and present his professional opinions to the jury.
Technology continues to advance, whether we like it or not, and AI is here. Engineers and other professionals will increasingly use modern tools to assist them in their work. What matters is that the professional evaluates the information, exercises independent judgment, and takes responsibility for the opinions ultimately presented. Mr. Autenrieth did exactly that.
KnightHawk stands behind the professionalism and integrity of its engineers. We strongly disagree with any characterization suggesting that the selective use of AI excerpts somehow replaces or invalidates Mr. Autenrieth’s independent engineering judgment or professional opinions.
Last week, a Harris County jury awarded $61.5 million to 24 plaintiffs in the case, one of several verdicts that have come against 3M.
In June 2025, $38 million in damages was awarded to five victims of the explosion, while another $118 million was awarded to seven victims in November 2025.
3M did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
3m, Chatgpt, Artificial intelligence, Watson grinding explosion, Tech
Indian-born billionaire whose hospitals are accused of birth tourism scheme received Biden award
The foundation created and led by Prem Reddy is in a bit of hot water.
Reddy’s Prime Healthcare Foundation owns and operates a hospital in Mission, Texas, called Mission Regional Medical Center. On July 7, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to launch an investigation into Mission Regional over allegations that it engaged in a birth tourism scheme.
‘Federal prosecutors have been directed to “bring illegal birth tourism to an end” by prosecuting both those who engage in such conduct and those who solicit it.’
Abbott accused Mission Regional of advertising “BIRTH PACKAGES IN SOUTH TEXAS” in foreign countries in “an apparent effort to profit from securing United States citizenship for their children.”
“American citizenship is not for sale, and Texas will not permit our health care system to be used as a magnet for birth tourism,” stated the governor.
In its subsequent letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission highlighted reports that billboards promoting the alleged scheme were spotted in Mexico. The billboards reportedly referred would-be birth tourists to “havemybabyinTexas.com.”
While the website appears to have been taken down, an archived version lists two hospitals as participants in the alleged scheme: Mission Regional and Knapp Medical Center in Weslaco — another Texas-based hospital owned by Reddy’s foundation.
RELATED: Justice Department STRIPS citizenship from female migrant who helped run DISTURBING business
Antranik Tavitian/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Karen Ray, chief counsel for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said in the letter to Paxton, “Such birth tourism schemes not only exploit the extraordinary privilege of American citizenship, but also frequently involve ‘lies about the purpose or duration of one’s travel to the United States.'”
“Accordingly, federal prosecutors have been directed to ‘bring illegal birth tourism to an end’ by prosecuting both those who engage in such conduct and those who solicit it for visa fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, misuse of identification, identity theft, and health care fraud,” continued Ray. “While the allegations concerning Mission Regional Medical Center and Knapp Medical Center may not be identical to the schemes described above, they are equally troubling.”
The HHSC referred the matter to Paxton, who confirmed on July 29 that he was investigating the two hospitals.
“My office will investigate any suspected illegal birth tourism schemes in Texas, including the operations of two South Texas hospitals that appeared to advertise birth tourism on a billboard near the border,” said Paxton. “My office will continue to hold accountable any entity that knowingly facilitates fraud in our state.”
Mission Regional chalked up the controversy to a misunderstanding.
A spokesman for the hospital said in a statement to Blaze News, “We recognize that a very limited marketing campaign may have caused unintended misunderstanding and was immediately discontinued. The campaign was meant to highlight services available to the communities we serve and was never intended to encourage any unlawful activity.”
The spokesman noted that the hospital’s supposedly “very limited campaign consisted of only two billboards located near the hospital and a website that generated very little patient volume, produced no financial benefit to the hospital, and was only intended as a service for the community, which is one of the most medically underserved regions of Texas.”
“The hospital does not support or facilitate unlawful activity and has never operated its obstetric program with the intent of attracting individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States, promoting birth tourism, or encouraging travel to the United States for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child,” said the spokesman.
According to Mission Regional’s spokesman, Knapp Medical Center “did not actively participate in this marketing campaign with no involvement since 2024 and only had two elective deliveries of 684 deliveries this year.”
Blaze News did not immediately receive a response from Knapp Medical Center or Paxton’s office.
On July 21, Abbott issued an executive order tasking relevant state agencies with investigating claims of birth tourism schemes within the Lone Star State’s health care industry. His office noted that “enforcement actions include revoking or suspending licenses, prohibiting participation in state contracts, denying state benefits, or pursuing other enforcement action under state law.”
The EO references the two Prime Healthcare Foundation hospitals.
The scandal is a bad look for the foundation, as well as for its leadership — particularly for Reddy, its CEO, and Reddy’s daughter, Kavitha Bhatia, who serves as president and chair of the Prime Healthcare Foundation.
In addition to receiving the Healthcare Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indo-American Chamber of Commerce, Reddy was presented with the Joseph R. Biden Lifetime Achievement Award in 2024.
Reddy’s organization noted at the time that the award, which was part of the President’s Volunteer Service Award program and given to certain individuals with a minimum of 4,000 hours of documented volunteer service, “recognizes Dr. Reddy’s exceptional commitment and significant and sustained contributions to ensuring that communities have access to quality health care.”
Reddy received the award even though he and his organization had in previous years reportedly paid over $100 million to the government as part of three separate federal civil settlements regarding alleged false claims to Medicare.
President and Jill Biden also posed for a photo with Reddy and Bhatia in 2022.
The founder of the scandal-plagued foundation isn’t the only one in his family with a tight relationship with Democratic power.
According to Bhatia’s bio on the Prime Healthcare website, she is a member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee leadership circle for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) and California Rep. Ro Khanna (D).
Reddy and Bhatia were both born in India. Neither responded to Blaze News’ request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Birth tourism, Immigration, Ken paxton, Greg abbott, Texas, Politics, Health care
Cover up or ‘leave’? Mother and daughter say they were confronted at WNBA game over pro-women shirts
Another WNBA game is in the spotlight for the wrong reasons over an issue that just won’t go away.
The Atlanta Dream hosted the Indiana Fever on Sunday, with the cloud of inclusiveness and trans-identifying athletes in the league still following the WNBA around. The Fever beat the Dream 95-91 in overtime.
‘I didn’t make signs. I wanted to make signs, but I didn’t.’
Fever star Sophie Cunningham has been instrumental in bringing to light the conversation of women needing their own sports, but now the focus has shifted to the league as a whole.
WNBA personnel met to discuss league eligibility rules last week, but still made no definitive rule changes about restricting men from their league.
For the second time in a few weeks, women showing their support for Cunningham caused a stir at a WNBA game. This time it was at the Gateway Center Arena in Atlanta, where a mother and daughter say they were told to cover up their pro-women shirts or leave.
Georgia mother Casey and her daughter Annie said arena security approached them at their floor seats over the shirts, which read “XX XY athletics.” The daughter’s shirt also read “for the girls” on the back.
The ladies claimed that during overtime, a security member told them their shirts were “offensive” before asking them to put on a “Wellness Night” Atlanta Dream shirt instead. If not, they would be removed from the arena.
The women obliged and wore the alternate shirts, as they wanted to see the end of the game.
“We did nothing. We were just sitting there. I didn’t make signs. I wanted to make signs, but I didn’t. I did nothing,” the mother told reporter Adam Francisco after the game. The women said they were in the third row of their section, in seats they estimated cost roughly $1,000 each.
Francisco, who also attended the game, told the women, “I did notice during the game on the Jumbotron, they put up a woman wearing a shirt that said ‘protect trans rights’ or something.”
A fan wearing a shirt that said, “Trans kids belong in sports,” was seen on the broadcast for the same game, though it is unclear if it is the same person Francisco referred to.
“She was the one that told on us,” the mother and daughter claimed. “She was made to zip up her jacket.”
The women said the person with opposing views should not have been silenced either.
Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images
When asked why they wore their shirts, the mother and daughter stated, “To support Sophie Cunningham and to support women and women’s sports because it’s just common sense.”
This wasn’t the first time the XX-XY apparel caused problems at a WNBA game. In late July, Seattle Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton confronted a pair of teen girls over their clothing, as well.
Due to allegedly cussing at the young women, Keaton was suspended for five games and assessed a fine.
Majority owner Ginny Gilder apologized for the incident and said the team remained committed to “creating an inclusive environment.”
The WNBA did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Basketball, Sophie cunningham, Sports, Wnba, Womens sports
Democrat campaign in complete CHAOS days before primary election in Alaska
The race to win one of two U.S. Senate seats from Alaska is getting much tougher for Democrats after the campaign for their candidate was tossed into turmoil.
Just days before the primary election, candidate Mary Peltola has lost an influential political adviser and campaign manager.
‘Her campaign is already imploding as Alaskans are reminded of her out-of-touch liberal agenda.’
The campaign confirmed Sunday that Anton McParland was no longer on the team, according to the Alaska Story, and other staffers are rumored to have left as well.
The campaign has not indicated if McParland left or was terminated, but the loss of a campaign manager days before the important primary election is never a good indicator.
Peltola has been previously rumored to be belligerent and abusive to her staff, but it’s unclear if those allegations had anything to do with the staff shake-up. Peltola also made headlines and received some ridicule after the campaign appeared to reject an endorsement from failed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
Recent polling shows Peltola with a slight lead of 1.6 percentage points over incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, but that is well within the margin of error. The unique jungle primary system in Alaska means the top four candidates will go on to the general election, meaning multiple Republicans or multiple Democrats could advance.
Chris Gustafson, the communications director for the Senate Leadership Fund, mocked the “Saturday Night Massacre” at the Peltola campaign.
RELATED: Jasmine Crockett DUMPS on Talarico’s US Senate campaign in Texas — and brings receipts
“We’re only a week into Senate Leadership Fund’s efforts to expose Mary Peltola, and her campaign is already imploding as Alaskans are reminded of her out-of-touch liberal agenda,” said Gustafson in a press release statement.
“[New York Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer and Washington Democrats have taken the wheel of Peltola’s floundering campaign, proving once again that Peltola answers to her party bosses — not the people of Alaska,” he added.
The Alaska primary is Tuesday. If Peltola is unable to secure the seat in November, it would significantly imperil the Democrats’ hopes of retaking the Senate.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Chuck schumer, Mary peltola, Alaska, Dan sullivan, Senate, Politics
Allie Beth Stuckey responds to AOC blaming ‘hysteria’ for women having kids young
After quietly calling off her engagement 18 months ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is pushing back against the idea that women should have children young, arguing that pressure to settle down early can lead women into relationships with men who don’t respect or support them.
“A lot of these people who pressure women into having kids at a young age or trying to create hysteria around being too old, etc. What they’re trying to do is rush you into having a relationship with a loser,” AOC said in a rant on Instagram.
“By a loser, I mean someone who doesn’t respect women, someone who doesn’t respect you, someone who doesn’t treat you well, someone that doesn’t support your growth,” she added.
But BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey notes there’s a crucial distinction between telling women to settle and acknowledging the biological realities of fertility.
“I don’t know if she’s trying to passive aggressively talk about her ex-fiance. Certainly, no one would accuse them of rushing into anything,” Stuckey comments, noting that the pair were together for “like 15 years.”
However, Stuckey doesn’t totally disagree with AOC.
“I certainly have not given that advice that you should just settle down and marry whoever comes along. I am so glad that I waited until I knew without a doubt that this is the person that I wanted to be with for the rest of my life, and I didn’t have any doubt in my mind,” she says.
“I recommend that if you are a Christian woman, that you find a Christian man who loves the Lord with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength, and who loves you, has the same values as you, who will cherish you,” she continues.
However, what AOC does seem to be saying that Allie disagrees with is that “you can’t possibly find that person young and settle down young without settling for some kind of misogynist.”
“I mean, that’s just crazy,” Stuckey says.
“We’re just pointing out that biology is real. It is real. It’s not paranoia. It’s just wisdom,” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Aoc, Biology, Christian, Fertility, Misogyny, Instagram, Children, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv show
Glenn Beck: Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta glasses pitch sounds more like a threat
AI wearables, like Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses, may be convenient, but at what cost — and not just to the wearer but to the surrounding public?
Unlike cameras and phones, which “announce” themselves, says Glenn Beck, AI wearables go practically undetected — which raises the issues of consent and privacy.
But this tension is not new.
Glenn notes that early photography required subjects to “hold still … 30 seconds,” so permission was built in. Then came the first true hidden cameras — “detective cameras” worn under a vest with the lens shaped “to look like a button.”
Shortly after, George Eastman’s small box camera arrived and made candid snapshots easy. The public backlash was fierce: beaches and the Washington Monument banned them, and papers called carriers “Kodak Fiends.” Within two years, Boston lawyer (and future Supreme Court justice) Louis Brandeis argued for “the right to be left alone” — a right that, as Glenn points out, “is not in the Constitution” but had to be invented “because of cameras.”
But what we’re dealing with today with AI wearables is “much worse,” he says.
“You are trading the right to be misunderstood in private now,” he says, pointing to CNN Business tech editor Lisa Eadicicco’s experience with her Amazon Bee Pioneer bracelet, which decided a casual comment about moving meant she was “anxious” about stability — even though she wasn’t.
“Now that conclusion exists in a file somewhere in a company’s system, and it will inform the next inference and the one after that, and it will store it,” says Glenn, describing how AI wearables’ conclusions about gathered data — even if it’s incorrect — will become part of the wearer or bystander’s “record.”
When one’s “off-the-record” self is eradicated, the result is that everyone becomes circumspect and reticent.
“In a room where everything is recorded and then held by a private company, that’s a room where nobody’s saying anything out loud. Nobody’s thinking out loud. Nobody’s risking anything,” says Glenn.
“A recording,” he explains, is “evidence — and evidence can get subpoenaed.”
“And it may be false evidence!” he exclaims.
“Every conversation you will ever have will be indexed and searchable … and it will be sitting on a server owned by a company with lawyers who work for the company,” Glenn continues.
But despite the devastating blows to privacy and consent, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s pitch for AI-powered smart glasses, he explains, has essentially been: “Wear it, or fall behind.”
Right now, the risk of declining AI wearables is low, says Glenn, but a day is coming soon when life will become nearly impossible without them.
“Two years from now, when your team’s meeting has notes, action items, performance reviews, and they’re all running off transcripts, declining won’t be a preference any more,” he warns. Now “it’s a problem; it’s you being difficult. Nobody will forbid you. They’ll just build the office around the assumption and let the cost fall on the holdout: you.”
To hear more, watch the video above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Glenn beck, Meta, Mark zuckerbeg, Artificial intelligence, Blazetv show
Harvard researchers just found out the dark truth about how to simulate the entire world
A massive system has been built to replicate how humans react to products, apps, and websites, without needing humans at all.
Researchers at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology say their network has the ability to simulate the world with “persona agents.”
‘The agents successfully expressed … their assigned traits 91.5% of the time.’
Based off a core set of just under 600,000 “human-grounded” personas, coupled with 400,000 synthetic records, the group at MatrAIx says they have found a way to simulate real reactions to questions, products, and more.
The approximately one million personas were used as the basis to create an AI bot population of 8.3 billion, which MatrAIx says can be run like a simulation and act as one giant focus group.
This allows companies to use the simulated personalities to garner reactions to price changes, for example. MatrAIx tested this theory by running its simulation to see whether or not one million people would still buy a 12-pack of Coca-Cola after a $2 increase. The simulation determined 61% of the population still would.
In addition to evaluating hesitation after a price increase, the bots simulated willingness to continue after an AI assistant fails its task as well as latency tolerance for websites, meaning how long a person will use a slow website before abandoning it.
Other examples provided included evaluating a mental health chatbot or shopping on Amazon for an espresso machine under $200 to see which product the AI bots choose and why.
The approach extends to social media apps. Instagram was used as an example where a bot can search for recipes and then watch and save preferred videos. It was explained that the program could have millions of bots doing this at the same time.
RELATED: China’s hottest start-up thinks it can beat the West with a new idea of freedom
There’s just one problem. The agents in the massive simulation cannot be wholly trusted to act the way humans would. As with any AI agent, there is a possibility that an agent in the world sim could fail to perform as instructed or desired.
In Harvard’s controlled study of 400 trials, measuring the bots’ adherence to 10 behavioral attributes, the results were good but not perfect. “The agents successfully expressed or correctly suppressed their assigned traits 91.5% of the time,” the researchers wrote.
MatrAIx, headed by Xiaomin Li (Harvard) and Yuexing Hao (MIT), conducted over 16,000 evaluation trials across eight different types of tasks. They used three large-language models for their studies: Claude Opus 4.8, Chat GPT 5.5, and Claude Haiku 4.5.
Human evaluations of the persona quality, however, were actually lower, listed as an average of 4.135 out of 5, which equates to about 83%.
This roughly 8.5% rate of agents simply failing to adhere to a persona could have large implications for customers who use the bots on a large scale. In the example provided for Coca-Cola consumption, that carries the possibility of 85,000 bots not answering accurately.
But the deeper problem the study confirmed is that Earth’s billions of human beings can’t be accurately simulated by AI agents programmed to be well-behaved. It’s impossible to model and predict human behavior if the agents standing in for the humans aren’t allowed to behave in all the devious, dangerous, and flawed ways individuals and groups do.
RELATED: Infamous cyberattackers claim their next shocking victim — using a decades-old trick
Mark Felix/AFP/Getty Images
That raises the dark prospect that entities or governments seeking ultimate predictive power will have to build large-scale simulators where agents representing real people are allowed to have antisocial, criminal, sinful, or even evil traits and behaviors.
The alternative, deeper human research, is nowhere near as cheap and swift as AI modeling. Most research groups seem to say that human focus groups are not effective at garnering mass public appeal anyway, while at the same time surveys can be a bit more time-consuming. The trade-off is that they are still human.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Harvard, Mit, Chatbot, Artificial intelligence, Survey, Tech
Wi-Fi. Microwaves. Electromagnetism. It’s all connected — and so is the damage.
Electromagnetism, sonar, radar, Wi-Fi 1-5G, ultrasound, phone radiation, microwave radiation. What’s it all doing to me — or my kids?
You’ll have occasion to wonder: Is the technological environment messing with me? Terraforming my natural conditions of existence?
Every report is received with the same blinders.
Is it also making other people dumb, depressed, mean?
No one you see (most days) is actively sprouting new appendages where appendages should not be. Nothing so obvious. And while even the most somnambulant among us harbor suspicions that some sort of effects must accompany such rapid and overwhelming change as has been brought about over the last, say, 40 years, we aren’t on the whole prepared to give up Amazon next-day, streaming movies on-demand, or the hope of luxury on cosmic scales: space travel, life extension, weeks or months spent in video-sensorial orgasmo-ecstasy.
Still, if something goes up, it eventually goes down … right?
Queries into effects are usually enough to placate. “Studies show …” and “effects on rats don’t equate to effects on humans” and similar palliative or obscurant phraseology is most often “reason” enough to let us rest, trust it will be OK, and — let’s face it — get back to our jobs, which allow our existence in the system at all.
Here’s the problem with this palliative and avoidant (if sometimes necessary) circuit that puts wonder to rest. Researchers aren’t studying, at all, the effects of the invisible forces and entities swarming through us all day, every day. Not the combined effects, nor the cumulative effects, nor the interactive effects.
That’s a lot of whistling past the graveyard.
And we’re building out that graveyard at a breakneck pace.
It’s all connected
There have been some studies, of course. Ten years ago, University of Bristol researchers concluded that “anthropogenic (man-made) noise is a global pollutant, and there is rapidly accumulating evidence of impacts on a range of animal taxa.”
The most outstanding aspect of this study is how it shows that a slight alteration in one physical sense impacts another, separate sense. “Using field-based experimental trials on habituated wild dwarf mongooses,” the team reported, “we combine sound playbacks and faecal presentations to demonstrate that anthropogenic noise can disrupt responses to information from different sensory modalities.”
Auditory stimulus didn’t just affect hearing, but smell. “Our results,” the researchers concluded, “are the first to show that anthropogenic noise could alter responses to olfactory cues, strongly indicating the possibility of cross-modal impacts of noise pollution on information use.”
Ten years, later, where’s the mountain of follow-up studies doing what “the science” is supposed to do — systematically explore and clarify areas of life where there seem to be nettlesome problems, the solution to which might just make life better, more livable, for everyone?
No. The unpredictable ways that combined human alterations alter the environment are not studied. There’s no incentive. And there are many incentives to shut up, shy away, deflect, and deny. Every result is reported with blinders on. Every report is received with the same blinders.
Safety, efficacy, and effects on biological environment are willfully lost in the shuffle. If a corporation footing the bill for innovative tech X is incentivized by threat Y, whether coming from government pressure, insurance costs, or future damage, then an otherwise relevant study is constructed to leap those threat hurdles and quickly shuffle back offstage.
RELATED: Elon Musk’s new megaproject is about to transform Texas
Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto/Getty Images
What’s more, the various research fields are tightly siloed, so it gets ever harder for troublesome inquirers to connect the dots from evidentiary data scattered across disciplines.
Tracking the clues
And yet, there’s still a train of breadcrumbs for those skilled and patient enough to do some tracking.
Consider, for instance, that GDP correlates to overall ocean acoustic noise. It’s up 10-fold from baseline. The more stuff we pump out, the louder the oceans get. There’s no inherent upper bound.
Similarly, the air around us is filling up with artificial energy. Planetary ambient radio frequency power flux density — that’s how much RF energy is present in the environment — in the frequency range around 1 GHz has increased by a factor of roughly 10^18 compared to what existed naturally before humans built transmitters. That figure, for the less math-inclined, is one quintillion. If that figure is 90% exaggerated, that’s still one hundred quadrillion times more EMF-saturated than we were in a natural, pre-hypertech world.
Then, there’s artificial light. Eighty percent of the world’s population, and over 99% of U.S. and European populations, now live under light-polluted skies. The Milky Way is hidden from more than a third of humanity. Reliable estimates show light pollution increased about 8% per year between 2011 and 2022.
The point of these bread crumbs is simple: The research, such as it exists at all, always gets pigeonholed away, so the overall, combined impact of the manmade alterations to our living space can never been seen in its totality for what it really is. People ruefully joke that the government’s debt is so big that we can’t even conceive of its actual size. This is bigger. What we’ve amassed in terms of sound waves and frequencies is so enormous that it simply defies lexical categorization or comparison.
I’m sure it’s fine. We’ve positioned our best, brightest, and most moral as leaders.
Lies of omission
We seem to have overlooked what the ancients knew of themselves — that we live under limits emplaced by an omniscient and omnipotent higher power. The pathetic part, as so much of our given humanity is traded away for nothing of lasting value? If we were to actually stop and check in on success rates around life extension and ostensible cures, we’d see that our return on investment has so far been minimal. We’d realize we everyday people have spent our whole lives bombarded by the noise of sensational claims, devious scams, and schemes designed to deconstruct our common sense until we finally cave in.
Scientific “salvation” is always, of course, just around the corner — if not today, then surely tomorrow. Meanwhile, as the poor dwarf mongoose shows, we turn a blind eye to the truth. Stubbornly, we refuse even to look at, much less reckon with, the costs and consequences of the complexity we’ve introduced. Honesty with ourselves, in this economy? We’re just following incentives, fatalistically accepting whatever our circumstances might be. When the worth of a human lifespan is measured in fast-depreciating dollars, what do you expect?
Tech, Pollution, Environment
Fauci was apparently warned to save ‘$$’ to tackle vaccine fallout: ‘Will come back to bite you’
Anthony Fauci and other health officials who told Americans the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” had suspicions to the contrary, a new document drop from Republican Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) appears to show.
A newly released email from May 2021 seemingly reveals that the head of the Food and Drug Administration was so concerned about the novel mRNA vaccines that she advised Fauci and then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins to create a contingency fund to deal with the fallout from them.
‘We cannot ignore her.’
During the pandemic, Fauci was the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director and the face of America’s mass vaccination campaign. He routinely emphasized the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and made a point of expressing his “extreme confidence” in the science behind them.
“I want to encourage everyone who has the opportunity to get vaccinated so that we can have a veil of protection over this country that would end this pandemic,” he said during his televised vaccination ceremony in December 2020.
Behind closed doors, however, he had his doubts.
The immunologist privately highlighted, for instance, a potential association between vaccination and miscarriage in a Jan. 25, 2021, text exchange with the surgeon general and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
RELATED: Trump spares kids from being Big Pharma’s pin cushions — and the ‘experts’ are FURIOUS
JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images
“I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of,” Fauci told Vivek Murthy and then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky. “Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”
Fauci — who was made aware later that day that initial pregnancy studies avoided “vaccination in first trimester due to possible fever and higher rates of miscarriage in first trimester” — stated publicly just days later that the data pertaining to vaccination among pregnant women “so far has no red flags.”
Private concerns were not limited to the vaccine’s impact on pregnant mothers and their unborn babies.
On Sunday, Sen. Johnson, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, published a May 27, 2021, email sent by then-acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock to Fauci and then-NIH Director Collins regarding the perceived need to begin squirreling away scientific research funds to later investigate vaccine side effects.
“I have been contacted by a number of people who have experienced adverse events post COVID-19 vaccination (from all three of the current vaccines),” wrote Woodcock. “Many are healthcare professionals, some of whom I know. The symptoms do not fit together into a distinctive syndrome and most are not easily quantifiable or evaluated with standard laboratory testing.”
While cognizant that “during mass vaccination you will get a lot pf psychological reactions,” Woodcock was nevertheless sensitive to complaints among apparent vaccine casualties that “no one takes them seriously, no one knows how to treat them” and that there had been “no effort to study this.”
By the time the FDA commissioner sent this email, VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, had already received reports of 8,650 deaths associated with the COVID injection, with 39% of those deaths taking place within two days of injection, noted Johnson’s office.
After casting doubt on the ability of VAERS to detect the full spectrum of side-effect cases, Woodcock stated in the email: “I think it would be worthwhile to do a study and evaluate a cohort of these individuals” who allegedly experienced “adverse events” after receiving the vaccine.
“But of course $$ need to be made available, and you would need an investigator who is interested in ‘medical mysteries,'” wrote Woodcock. “I doubt the industry would support, for obvious reasons. But my experience is, that if you let a problem fester, then it will come back to bite you later and you are not prepared.”
Fauci subsequently told Collins, “We cannot ignore her. We should probably bring in CDC and see what Rochelle thinks.”
Johnson’s office noted that based on the information reviewed to date, it’s unclear whether Walensky was ever consulted.
Blaze News did not immediately receive a response from the CDC, the FDA, or an attorney representing Fauci. Woodcock could not be reached for comment.
Roughly three months after Woodcock echoed the complaints of apparent vaccine casualties, she celebrated the FDA’s first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, which had previously been made available as a result of the agency’s Emergency Use Authorization authority.
“While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product,” Woodcock stated at the time.
Johnson expressed outrage over the newly released email, writing, “Why wasn’t the public alerted to their concerns? Why did they continue to push and mandate the COVID shot? Why weren’t Americans allowed fully informed consent?”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Covid-19, Vaccine, Anthony fauci, Food and drug administration, National institute of allergy and infectious diseases, Centers for disease control and prevention, Politics
Trump again threatens to bomb ALLY over Iran negotiations
Nearly six months into the U.S.-Iran conflict, President Donald Trump has once again threatened military action against an ally with which America has enjoyed a positive relationship for nearly two centuries.
Although the president suggested in early July that America’s ceasefire with Iran was effectively defunct, the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding is only now formally expiring. Trump confirmed in an interview on Monday morning with Fox News’ Trey Yingst that there is, however, a back channel for peace talks with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — apparently bypassing mediators and Iranian political officials.
‘They’re dying.’
“They should put up the white flag of surrender,” Trump reportedly told Yingst.
“I have no time schedule. I’m not in a hurry.”
The president — who reportedly has the last remaining U.S. aircraft carrier in the western Pacific headed for the Middle East — indicated there remains the potential for peace, but he underscored on Truth Social around the time of the interview that “the number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape, or form, a Nuclear Weapon.”
According to Yingst, Trump said that despite the Iranians suggesting otherwise, the Iranians are feeling the economic pressure of the U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
“They’re good poker players, but they’re dying,” Trump reportedly told Yingst.
RELATED: VIDEO: Trump says he will declare new US territory ‘pretty soon’ in the Middle East
Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto/Getty Images
Iran is reportedly seeking some relief via a parallel agreement with Oman — a deal aimed at resuming maritime traffic down the strait, which runs between their nations.
Iranian Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmail Baghaei revealed on Monday that “an understanding has been reached regarding the map of the transit route,” reported the Associated Press.
Blaze News has reached out to Oman’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.
When asked about the deal, Trump reportedly told Yingst, “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s**t out of them.”
When asked for comment, the White House referred Blaze News back to Trump’s remarks.
This is not the first time in recent months that Trump has threatened military action against the country of 5.3 million people, which has been attacked in recent months by Iran.
Following reports that Tehran was attempting to convince Oman to support its initiative to toll vessels transiting the strait, Trump said on May 27, “They would like to control it.”
“Oman will behave just like everybody else,” said Trump. “Or else we’ll have to blow them up. They understand that. They’ll be fine.”
The president said in a speech on Friday that “after we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Strait of hormuz, Iran, Oman, Donald trump, Politics
Murder suspect wearing shirt with chilling message captured after 45-day, multistate manhunt; victim found in shallow grave
A Florida woman wanted for the murder of a father whose body was found with a zip tie around his neck and buried in a shallow grave has been arrested following a weeks-long, multistate manhunt, according to authorities.
The Walton County Sheriff’s Office said the U.S. Marshals Task Force on Thursday afternoon arrested 38-year-old Isabelle Johnson at a house in Cottondale.
‘She covered the body with cement so that the dog would not dig it up again.’
“We got her,” police proclaimed on social media. “Isabelle Johnson is in custody.”
Johnson was arrested while wearing a T-shirt with message that read, “Force to be reckoned with.”
WMBB-TV reported that Johnson appeared in court Friday morning, and she was ordered held without bond.
Police stated, “The arrest was the result of information developed by the Walton County Sheriff’s Office Cyber Crimes Unit on Johnson’s whereabouts.”
Authorities alleged that investigators searched for Johnson in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
Walton County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Dustin Cosson said investigators put in “tons and tons of man-hours” during the search for Johnson that lasted roughly 45 days, according to Fox News.
Fox News added that the broader investigation involved more than 40 subpoenas and over 20 search warrants.
On Friday afternoon, police announced that Johnson has been extradited from the Jackson County Jail to Walton County.
Johnson was wanted on an open count of murder in connection with the death of 43-year-old Jason Coulthart, whose remains were discovered June 25 in a shallow grave.
The New York Post, citing police, reported that Coulthart’s body was found “with a zip tie around his neck buried in a shallow grave, which was covered in concrete, with a black Cadillac parked over it …”
Coulthart initially was reported missing May 24.
“She killed the victim by placing a zip tie around his neck,” an unnamed witness told investigators, according to the police report.
Johnson’s roommate helped her dig a hole to bury Coulthart’s body, the police report also noted.
A witness added, “She covered the body with cement so that the dog would not dig it up again.”
The witness also told investigators that “he was aware of her ‘getting rid’ of a boy because he was ‘aggravating and irritating her,'” according to the police report the Post obtained.
The witness said the “boy” also was “threatening to interfere with Isabelle’s custody of her children,” the police report added.
The Walton County Sheriff’s Office said in a previous statement, “She’s a monster, not a beast.”
“Johnson frequently moves locations and often convinces others to help her by telling sympathetic stories involving domestic violence or other personal hardships,” according to authorities.
Investigators described Johnson as a “master manipulator,” according to ABC News.
Police said Johnson had multiple identities and aliases, including Harley, Jessica Elaine Bowman, Jessica Elaine Thrush, Jessica Elaine Thrash, and Jessica Dowdy.
Others have been arrested in connection with the case.
“Five individuals have been arrested for accessory after the fact to a capital felony as investigators continue efforts to locate Johnson, who has been actively evading law enforcement,” police stated.
According to WEAR-TV, 31-year-old Bobbi Wagstaff was charged with accessory to capital murder after the fact and possession of methamphetamine.
Martin and Sandra Leaverton, both 63, were charged with accessory after the fact to capital murder after investigators alleged they helped Johnson retrieve her belongings, provided a cell phone, and tried to help her find refuge outside Florida, WEAR added.
Michael Ray White, 74, and Kathleen Morris, 59, were charged with accessory to a capital felony after the fact and obstruction after they allegedly provided Johnson with shelter, transportation, and supplies while misleading police regarding her whereabouts.
Walton County officials said additional charges are expected.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Us marshals, Florida, Manhunt, Murder suspect, Shallow grave, Arrest, Crime
Famous actress lost 100 pounds — but the left is begging her to stay fat
Morbidly obese actress Chrissy Metz has lost 100 pounds after taking a GLP-1, but the left isn’t happy about it.
In an interview on “The Today Show,” Metz’s decision was shockingly met with concern by Savannah Guthrie — who pointed to the feelings of those in the “body positivity” movement.
And BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t surprised, commenting, “One of the things that just continues to be true about the left is that they just want to bring everyone else down.”
“They seemingly work to keep people fat via the body positivity movement where they’re cheering on obesity because somehow it makes you more strong and more powerful the fatter you are or something,” she adds.
In the interview, Guthrie pointed out that “a lot of people” have “admired” Metz because they “feel seen.”
“You’ve represented this whole community. And I don’t know if there are some people watching and have mixed feelings about it. And I don’t know that you have to provide an answer to them,” Guthrie said.
“But if there are people that are like, ‘Oh, Chrissy, I thought, you know,’ somehow they’re disappointed with this, what would you say?” Guthrie asked.
“Well, I think that it’s so important to put yourself first. And you know, as we age, sometimes we have health issues that we’re concerned about or want to get ahead of. And that certainly was my case. And I have to do what’s right for me,” Metz responded.
“You have to live your own life, and I have to do that for myself,” she added.
“Somehow, people are supposed to be disappointed that she’s actually trying to better herself,” Gonzales comments, before mocking Guthrie, “Let me explain to you why you’re letting people down by taking control of your health.”
And Gonzales, of course, doesn’t think Metz should worry about the “movement” she has disappointed, as she believes it’s just a way for unhealthy people to cope with their decisions.
“It’s just an insecurity thing where they’re like, ‘Actually, I’m proud that I’m morbidly obese,’” she says.
“I cannot be convinced that anyone actually thinks that way,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Body positivity, Savannah guthrie, Today show, Weight loss, Sara gonzales, Chrissy metz, Glp1, Obesity, Blazetv show
Joe Rogan & Shane Gillis say we’re never going back — and young men should listen
A night of drinking in Belfast gave Joe Rogan an epiphany: It’s never going to be that way again.
Joking with fellow comedians Shane Gillis, Mark Normand, and Ari Shaffir, the quartet were going through their usual roundtable of anecdotes when — as usual — some sage advice poked its head through.
‘Cameras have ruined young people.’
Just the flip
Rogan was recalling a night on the town in Northern Ireland, telling his friends about a literal drunken Irishman who was rambling about being willing to fight anyone. That experience, known only to him, is foregone history now thanks to modern technology.
“I miss those days where I could just go to a bar and just just pull up and just get lit. It was fun,” Rogan said on his podcast.
“It’s too hard” now, the comedian continued; it’s all about the phones.
“So this is like 2007 … there’s no cameras. There’s no phones. Nobody. There’s no iPhone yet. So it’s like people were just hanging out.”
Then even Normand, who is usually a sunglasses-wearing fly on the wall who provides inappropriate remarks, was in lock-step with how smartphones have caused generational issues for the youth.
“Cameras have ruined young people, [they] can’t cut loose.”
Rogan concurred, “Phones ruined everything in terms of like, people’s connection with each other.”
The 59-year-old has lived a long time in the spotlight; whether it was reporting from early UFC events, hosting “Fear Factor,” or doing stand-up tours, he feels confident pinpointing the exact place in time young people should be trying to replicate.
“The old phones, that was as far as we should have went. The flip phone that you could text on, and the texting sucked.”
RELATED: Move over, milk crates: Dorm rooms now come with interior designers — and five-figure price tags
Scroll models
Rogan’s message been clear over the years: Put the phone away or face being “stuck,” only if for a few days.
“I’ve pulled back considerably like I was saying, over the last three months. … I just decided enough is enough,” Rogan continued. “I don’t like how I feel when I just scroll through doom.”
Having previously stated that he doesn’t want his phone anywhere near him while driving, Rogan, along with Gillis, has been signaling to young men that being disconnected from one’s phone can not only serve as an advantage, it can be a relief.
The dreadful feeling was Gillis’ angle, who felt like his decision to disconnect was thrust upon him, as opposed to a conscious move like that of Rogan.
Mirroring lawsuits against popular social media companies, Gillis said his exodus from platforms isn’t a choice, instead he “got lucky enough that I can’t look at it anymore. I can’t. It’s just negative.”
“It’s not like I’m like making a disciplined choice to be like, ‘I don’t want to look at this anymore,'” Gillis added. He hasn’t looked at Reddit in years, and he can’t even bring himself to look at X.
“It genuinely makes me feel bad,” he stressed.
“I don’t want to click on it anymore.”
RELATED: ‘House’ star Hugh Laurie responds to claims he supports men in women’s sports: ‘Firstly, f**k off’
Anna Barclay/Getty Images
Bro breakthrough
The four horsemen of “Protect Our Parks” represent the advanced status of a group of friends from different backgrounds who made it big.
The reflection men see in them is obvious; it’s like bros in a basement. This is specifically present when Rogan says things like, “There’s a UFC in L.A. If you guys want to take over the Comedy Store for a weekend,” as if they’re heading to the bar.
But in that commentary comes lessons for the next generation of young men:
“You don’t want to live in their world,” Rogan said of influencers and phone addicts.
The truth bombs culminated:
“You don’t want to be in their head, and they don’t want it either. And the only way for them out is to not do that. And if they keep doing it and keep living in that f**king same swamp of ideas, they’re never going to change.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Comedy, Joe rogan, Ari shaffir, Mark normand, Shane gillis, Cell phones, Entertainment
My eating disorder got questions. My gender identity got answers.
As the buzz of summer winds down, back-to-school season offers families a fresh start. Kids return to routines and extracurriculars. Moms like me return to schedules, snacks, playdates, forms, and the peculiar relief of getting everyone back on a calendar.
Before we get buried in backpacks and lunch boxes, though, parents need to brace for something harder: our children’s mental health.
Our children need adults willing to talk with them, challenge them when necessary, and remain present when the conversation gets uncomfortable.
A recent Wall Street Journal investigation described Oregon as an epicenter of pediatric gender medicine, with diagnoses of gender dysphoria and use of cross-sex hormones among minors rising sharply in recent years. Oregon has only about 1% of the nation’s teenagers, yet its clinics reportedly accounted for roughly 7% of gender-related mastectomies performed on teenage girls from 2019 through 2023.
Those numbers are shocking. But behind every one is a child. I was one of those children not very long ago.
When I was 16, I found Tumblr communities full of girls who sounded just like me. They were uncomfortable in their bodies. They struggled with anxiety, depression, isolation, and the feeling that they did not fit. Their stories felt eerily familiar. We fed off one another’s pain until many of us came to believe that being transgender explained it — and that changing our bodies might cure our mental distress.
I was already battling anorexia. I hated myself and hated the body I saw in the mirror. That is why the contrast in how adults treated my two forms of distress still haunts me.
When I told doctors and therapists that I was starving myself because I saw myself as overweight, they did not affirm that perception. They treated it as something to question and work through. But when I said my breasts made me uncomfortable, my gender distress was not challenged in the same way. I was told that transition could be the answer. No questions, no pushback.
Looking back, I was not born in the wrong body. I was a hurting teenager looking for belonging, certainty, and an explanation for my pain.
The reality is that adolescence itself is full of unstable explanations. Teenagers are awkward, lonely, impulsive, anxious, obsessive, and desperate to belong. They compare themselves with peers, test identities, reject identities, and search for language that makes their discomfort intelligible. Sometimes the first explanation that feels coherent is not the right one.
RELATED: Detransitioner sues Oregon gender clinics for ‘abhorrent misdiagnosis’ that ‘mutilated’ her body
Image source: YouTube video screenshot
Across the country — consider states such as New Mexico, where schools have adopted policies accommodating students’ asserted gender identities — vulnerable children can encounter adults who treat social transition as an appropriate response before parents even understand what is happening.
That should terrify parents, especially when gender distress appears alongside trauma, autism, depression, eating disorders, or a simple discomfort with narrow stereotypes about what girls and boys are supposed to be. Those possibilities should be explored, not hurried past.
Previous generations of girls were told, directly and indirectly, that happiness required becoming impossibly thin. Today, some distressed girls encounter a different promise: Maybe the body itself is the problem. The common thread is not merely social media or “woke” politics. It is vulnerability.
That’s why therapy should help a young person untangle difficult emotions, not merely supply a label for them. “Why do you feel this way?” and “What name and pronouns would you like me to use?” are not interchangeable questions. One opens an inquiry. The other can foreclose it.
As another school year begins, parents should remember that adolescence has always been messy. Teenagers feel awkward and lonely. They try things, fail at things, discover new passions, abandon old ones, experiment with style and music, and slowly begin to understand who they are. That process can continue well beyond high school.
RELATED: The right has a blind spot about young women
Blaze Media Illustration
Our children do not need adults who immediately affirm every explanation they discover online. They need adults willing to talk with them, challenge them when necessary, and remain present when the conversation gets uncomfortable.
Use the dinner table. Talk about your own failures and insecurities. Tell them what helped and what you wish you had understood sooner. Get them outside. A scraped knee from the monkey bars is often healthier than another four hours alone with an algorithm.
Most of all, do not surrender the hard conversations to strangers, schools, influencers, or online communities. Do not let someone else take the reins of your child’s life while you are still trying to figure out what happened.
The best back-to-school supply we can give our kids is not another lesson in identity. It is the reassurance that they do not have to change their bodies, their appearance, or every uncomfortable feeling in order to belong.
Anorexia, Autism, Depression, Gender dysphoria, Mental health, Stereotypes, Transgender, Social transition, Lgbtq, Opinion & analysis
Do you wear your shoes in the house?
Do you wear shoes in the house?
Or do you remove them every time you open the front door, place them tidily next to the closet, and proceed into your humble abode with only a thin layer of sock between your foot and the floor?
What does it mean that most households in America today are shoes-off households? Why is there a change?
This question of indoor footwear, or lack thereof, is a surprisingly interesting one. You might think it doesn’t really matter that much whether or not your shoes stay on while inside, but it is a somewhat fascinating little debate for the acute observers of our perpetually evolving American culture.
Sole survivors
There are a few different ways to view the shoes-in-the-house debate. The first layer is that of personal preference. For lots of families in America, it comes down to a mundane choice. Mom and dads on a random weekday just sort of come to the conclusion that they are going to either be a shoes-on or shoes-off household, and that’s what they do for the rest of their lives together. For others the decision is an inherited one. They grew up keeping shoes on, so that’s what their kids grow up doing. We do what we are used to; it’s tradition.
Beyond the simple choice of personal taste, there are geographical ways of looking at the question of rubber soles on wood floors. There are regional factors at play. The U.S. is a big place with lots of different climates, and taking shoes off or keeping them on wavers a bit from region to region. For those in the sloshiest and snowiest ares of the U.S., keeping your boots on inside in the middle of February is a nonstarter. For others, in the drier regions, keeping shoes on isn’t particularly concerning whether it’s July or February.
There are also global differences in the answer to the question of shoes inside the house. I should say it’s a bit hard to get reliable data on global attitudes regarding this question. All the maps you find are slightly different, and the sources aren’t exactly clear. I mean, what’s this polling really like? But taking account of all the available maps, the very west end of Western Europe, North America, Central America, and South America tend to be shoes-on, and the rest of the world is generally shoes-off with a few exceptions.
Don’t tread on me
Last but not least, a final aspect to this discussion is one of American history. Have you ever seen a photo of a family gathering or party in America during the 1950s in which the majority of adults are sitting or standing around inside without their shoes on?
Probably not, and if you have, it’s an exceedingly rare photo of an equally rare occurrence. Back in old America — think 1800-1950 — people kept their shoes on inside. The thought of a group of adult men and women sitting around showing their dirty socks to one another would be very preposterous, extremely undignified, and generally rude. No one was asking people to take their shoes off at the door in 1958 America.
Though America is still considered a shoes-on country by many foreigners, things have changed. There is a trending line running toward socks on the floors and shoes by the doors.
What does it mean that most households in America today are shoes-off households? Why is there a change? And what has brought it about?
It’s hard to say. Some might argue that increased immigration from countries where shoes-off is the norm has changed attitudes in America without people realizing their attitudes are being changed. I think there could be truth to this. Immigration obviously brings unforeseen impacts, though I’m not sure many Midwesterners are really that influenced by Asiatic household footwear norms. Any influence due to immigration is probably minimal when it comes to this very narrow matter.
RELATED: Yes, groceries are more expensive. Now what?
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Footloose and fancy-free
I think any change toward an increase in more shoes-off households comes more broadly from an increasing informality that has spread through our culture over the past four decades. People are now comfortable showing their bare socks and requesting others do the same when visiting their home.
Is that a good thing? Is it a sign of a closer community or a more generally friendly and approachable disposition?
I don’t know. Maybe, but probably not. People are not closer today than they were in the past. They know their neighbors less, community bonds are weaker, and social satisfaction is down. Robert Putnam’s 2000 book “Bowling Alone” documents all this well. The fact that more people host parties and request that guests take off their shoes says more about increased informality and less about closeness.
Toeing the line
Changing opinions about cleanliness play a role in this evolution. For some reason today, people really do not want any dust or dirt tracked into the entryway to their house. It’s not unreasonable to want a clean house. We all do. I have three kids in a small home and know how messy it can get. But brooms and vacuums exist, and they work. People certainly seem more concerned about any possible dirt being tracked in than they did a few generations ago.
I don’t think there’s an objectively right or wrong way. Shoes-on houses are good, and so are shoes-off ones. Though I do think it’s worthwhile to wonder what cultural changes signify, because they often mean more than what meets the eye. And no matter how logical it might be to remove shoes so as to keep a house cleaner, the change from 1956 to 2026 says something about changing attitudes regarding formality and presentation in the American home, and it’s fair to wonder if those changing attitudes are related to broader developments in the society, many of which are not terribly good.
Is there some strange connection between requesting that guests remove their shoes and pajama pants in the airport? In the American context, probably yes.
As for me, I’ll keep wearing my sport coat at the airport and my loafers in the kitchen.
Indoor footwear debate, Shoes in house, Global differences, Lifestyle, Culture, Etiquette, Hospitality, The root of the matter
DHS is naming names, and the media is melting down
The media melted down last week as the Department of Homeland Security’s top attorney, James Percival, criticized “the worst of the worst” activist judges who are blocking President Trump from securing our borders and our homeland.
The American people should be outraged — not by the rebuke of a top federal official, but by the judges who are overstepping their authority and putting us in danger.
The left’s playbook is obvious: Activist judges usurp power that they do not have to block the Trump administration, and then liberals in the media run interference for them.
President Trump is doing what people re-elected him to do: secure our southern border and deport the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who were allowed in this country by the Biden administration and previous administrations. But a small number of activist federal district judges have issued rulings contrary to the law that have made this a lot more difficult, frustrating the will of the voters.
The examples are especially shocking when you get past the media spin. The Trump administration has now repeatedly won at the Supreme Court on the president’s ability to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from specific countries. For example, people allowed to come here temporarily after 1991’s violence in Somalia are still here 35 years later.
Some 50,000 Hondurans were permitted to come here after 1999’s Hurricane Mitch; President Trump ended their temporary status last September. The administration was sued for finally ending TPS for multiple countries, and the Supreme Court upheld the Trump position that temporary means temporary. Yet today, even after the Supreme Court ruling, rogue judges in Massachusetts and Illinois continue to deny the president the ability to terminate TPS.
An even more ridiculous example is that the federal government still has not been allowed to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien who has no legal right to be here. Why? Because a district judge ordered Garcia, a suspected gang member, released into the United States. The Trump administration is appealing that ruling too, spending valuable time and taxpayer dollars defeating yet another activist ruling by a rogue judge.
Rather than defend these indefensible judicial rulings, the liberal media are attempting a sleight-of-hand trick and are attacking Percival for criticizing judges by name. This is laughably hypocritical, since U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani targeted Percival directly in an official judicial opinion.
Some of the left’s greatest heroes have said far more bombastic things than the Trump DHS has ever said, and they did so without journalists hyperventilating. President Obama broke centuries of precedent by castigating the Supreme Court in person during the State of the Union Address over the Citizens United case, causing a visible reaction of disbelief by Justice Samuel Alito.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) all but threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name that “you will pay a price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Sure enough, deranged leftists have attempted to murder Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett ever since that hateful speech, yet we never hear the media call for Schumer to exercise civility.
RELATED: The Justice Department finally has a grown-up in charge
Alex Wong/Getty Images
By now, the left’s playbook is obvious: Activist judges usurp power that they do not have to block the Trump administration, and then liberals in the media run interference for them, distracting the public with manufactured outrage.
The goal is to run out the clock on the Trump era. The critics tell Percival to simply appeal these rulings without criticizing judges, but the appeals cost the department months of time in a brief four-year presidential term, which is exactly what the left wants. The public needs to know the agenda they voted for is being thwarted by activist judges.
As DHS’ top lawyer, Percival is right to call out rogue district judges and make clear that activist rulings will be appealed and overturned by the higher courts.
I held Percival’s job during the first Trump administration, and I faced many of the same challenges from activist judges. The department has an obligation to correct misinformation and false impressions in the public, especially those that will encourage more illegal immigration, visa overstays, and other lawbreaking.
Judges are public servants with a public trust, and the Constitution says that they are to hold their positions only on condition of “good behavior.” The Trump administration must continue to call them out, continue to get their rulings overturned, and continue to carry out the mandate of the voters.
Either America will finish the fight against illegal immigration or illegal immigration will finish America.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Activist judges, Department of homeland security, Illegal immigrants, Kilmar abrego garcia, Southern border, Supreme court, Deportations, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump
Illegal alien child abuser caught in US after being deported, Border Patrol tells Blaze News
Border Patrol agents caught a man who returned to the U.S. after being previously deported, according to an exclusive statement to Blaze News.
Francisco Gallegos-Garza was deported to Mexico after he was convicted in 2011 for illegal re-entry into the U.S. and served 46 months in prison.
‘Criminal illegal aliens who repeatedly attempt to enter our country pose a serious risk, and our agents stand ready to meet the challenge.’
On Aug. 10, Border Patrol agents were patrolling west of Del Rio, near the Rio Grande, when they encountered Gallegos-Garza, who is now 59 years old.
The man has an extensive criminal record, including a felony conviction for injury to a child with intentional bodily injury.
Gallegos-Garza faces another charge of re-entry after deportation and faces up to 20 years in prison, if convicted.
“Keeping repeat offenders from entering our borders is key to safeguarding our communities,” said Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Anthony “Scott” Good.
“Criminal illegal aliens who repeatedly attempt to enter our country pose a serious risk, and our agents stand ready to meet the challenge,” he added.
The Trump administration has significantly ramped up deportation and other immigration enforcement efforts. In June the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said that there had been 356,389 total deportations for the current fiscal year.
The Trump administration has blamed the former Biden regime for easing immigration enforcement and allowing millions to flow into the U.S.
“Fulfilling President Donald J. Trump’s mandate, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have delivered the most secure border in history, stopping dangerous criminal aliens and illicit narcotics from entering our communities, which will keep America safe for generations to come,” read a statement from Border Patrol to Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Us border patrol, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Child abuse, Deportations, Politics
Woke 2.0 is coming … and it will be worse
Readers familiar with the Dr. Seuss classic “The Cat in the Hat” will remember the twin chaos agents Thing 1 and Thing 2. “‘These Things are good Things,’” the Cat reassures the children, whose mother has inexplicably left them under the supervision of a fish. “‘They are tame. Oh, so tame! / They have come here to play.’”
The Things briefly feign innocence, then quickly reveal themselves to be marauding imps, knocking over nightstands and ruining the linens. “I do not like the way that they play!” says the son of the house.
Now here comes Woke 1 and Woke 2. “Woke 1 was crazy,” said U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quoting an unnamed city councilman in a viral interview for ABC. The congresswoman sheepishly acknowledged that Americans did not like the way Woke 1 played out, while also implicitly announcing that there will soon be, or already is, a Woke 2. And it will be tame. Oh, so tame!
For purposes of advertisement, Woke 2 will try to keep its trans members less conspicuous than Woke 1 did, for at least as long as it takes to re-establish national power.
There is, in fact, a new version of wokeness in the making. But just as Thing 2 was fundamentally identical to Thing 1, Woke 2 will not be any different in essence from Woke 1. They are both here to upend the furniture.
Wokeness in all its forms is grievance politics. Its central idea is that an injustice lies at the heart of America and must be corrected to atone for the historical misery inflicted on groups of innocents.
What is changing in Woke 2 is the account of who those innocents are and how they have been wronged. Woke 1 was founded on the notion that black women are the most oppressed, and therefore most righteous, of all people. “I’m thinking,” said Kamala Harris in her vice presidential victory speech, “about her and the generations of women — black women.” She mentioned many other kinds of women, of course, but the list began and ended with “the black women — who are too often overlooked, but so often prove that they are the backbone of our democracy.”
This approach had rhetorical power, up to a point. It traded on the successes of second-wave feminism and the reality of black slavery in America’s past. But it ran into some problems. Third-wave feminism, as worked out by theorists like Judith Butler, made it basically impossible not to affix the prefix “trans-” wherever the word “woman” appeared. So the flag of Woke 1 became the complicated and confusing progress Pride flag — a gay rainbow with black and trans colors intruding from the left.
RELATED: How Kamala Harris accidentally sold the SAVE America Act
Christian Bruna/Getty Images
To make matters worse, the legacy of slavery did not actually touch all the racial minorities that Democrats wanted to bring into their fold. Most Nigerians, for example, had not experienced segregation in the United States. Nor had the millions of unvetted South and Central Americans streaming across the border.
They were certainly “people of color.” But so were Chinese, Japanese, and Indian Americans, whose typically enviable life outcomes fit awkwardly into the narrative that the country was built on a ruthless caste system.
The contradictions heightened as Woke 1 faced a series of embarrassments such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case in which Asian students complained that admissions officers were discriminating against them in favor of black applicants. Then there were the notorious Trump ’24 ads that pinned Harris to her previous support of taxpayer-funded gender surgeries for federal prison inmates.
Placing black women at the center of the moral universe created an unexpected and electorally unworkable set of obligations to illegal immigrants and queer felons.
Clearly, the coalition needed shuffling. And so rearranging the order of priorities in the grievance hierarchy is what the reinvention of woke has actually been about. In place of the black trans woman who defined Woke 1, Woke 2 has chosen as its ideal victim the dispossessed Palestinian liberationist, fighting with Hamas against Israel. This has a number of interesting strategic advantages.
First, the racial argument has been neatly streamlined. Rather than implausibly analogizing every racial group in America to the victims of Jim Crow, Woke 2 presents the black American story as just one instance of a global fight for justice carried out by minorities everywhere and epitomized in the intifada.
RELATED: Socialism’s favorite bait-and-switch
Scott Olson/Getty Images
In 2023, on a panel for the Democratic Socialists of America, future New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed that “when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”
He was outlining the blueprint for Woke 2, which takes its cues not from Judith Butler but from post-colonialist Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961). “Between colonial violence and the insidious violence in which the modern world is steeped,” wrote Fanon, “there is a kind of complicit correlation, a homogeneity.” Therefore, “The colonized, underdeveloped man is today a political creature in the most global sense of the term.”
Recently, in an intriguing interview with the New Yorker’s David Remnick, Democrat Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed put forward an argument that connects Fanon’s global struggle to America’s domestic economy. He claimed that pro-Israel politicians are allowing “the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide.”
In other words, Woke 2’s new order of priorities allows its proponents to suggest that white or white-coded (read: Jewish) oppressors are funneling money away from America’s working poor to fund a worldwide campaign of mass slaughter.
Distant as this account is from reality, it is much more ruthlessly focused as a line of woke reasoning. It emphasizes foreign policy and the economy, where the public’s real anger lies, and deftly mutes the discredited claims of LGBTQ extremists.
In practice, any woke administration of any variety will end up imposing pretty much the same bizarre sexual priorities on the country once elected. But for purposes of advertisement, Woke 2 will try to keep its trans members less conspicuous than Woke 1 did, for at least as long as it takes to re-establish national power.
Replacing the progress Pride flag with the Palestinian flag will distract from the ravages of queer excess while infusing socialist revolution with the moral self-righteousness of anti-white resentment.
Whether this tactic succeeds with voters is another matter. If it does, though, Americans will discover that both Woke 1 and Woke 2, like Thing 1 and Thing 2, only play nice until they can start turning over tables. If we want to avoid a rerun of the early 2020s, then — to paraphrase Seuss — we will have to get rid of Woke 1 and Woke 2.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.
Black women, Democratic socialists of america, Dr seuss, Foreign policy, Illegal immigrants, Woke 1, Woke 2, Zohran mamdani, Economy, Lgbtq agenda, Alexandria ocasio-cortez, Abdul el-sayed, Opinion & analysis
Ariana Grande’s gory chainsaw massacre music video exposes Hollywood’s spiritual sickness
Ariana Grande’s new music video for her song “Petal” opens with a “parental advisory and viewer warning.”
Before a single verse is sung, a voiceover cautions: “The following video contains explicit content and depicts graphic violence, which may be offensive to some viewers. Viewer discretion is advised.”
It’s an honest warning. The nearly seven-minute video that follows includes one of the most graphically violent sequences in a mainstream Hollywood pop music video in recent history.
In the video, a skeletal-looking Grande plays the role of Pepper, an aspiring actress who repeatedly auditions at the fictional Fame Inc. and faces harsh rejection from male executives over her looks and talent. Eventually, Pepper snaps and murders the panel with a chainsaw.
The sequence cuts between stark red silhouette shots of Pepper wildly swinging the chainsaw and closer live-action frames that show the blood spraying as limbs and fingers are severed. She keeps going until the executives are a mangled, bloody heap, then walks out of the room still covered in gore, as the room full of her fellow female auditionees erupts into applause and cheers.
The scene is so horrifically violent, Allie Beth Stuckey refuses to play it on her show. But she does expose what’s going on beneath Grande’s sudden dark turn.
Allie highlights a disturbing pattern among female pop stars.
“They become darker and edgier and more violent and more disturbed in their artistry as time goes on,” she says, pointing to Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Chappell Roan as examples. “That seems to also be true of someone like Ariana Grande.”
Between the gory violence in the “Petal” music video and Grande’s “skin-and-bones” frame, Allie is nearly certain the “Wicked” star is under the influence of demonic powers.
“When you have this skeletal figure covered in blood, you see the wedding of these two things [and] she’s glorifying them … I do think that there is something very dark going on mentally and spiritually here,” she says, noting that Grande has not admitted to any weight-related illness or struggle and has insisted she’s “so much healthier now than she used to be.”
“I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes in Hollywood. I think some very scary exchanges probably happen,” Allie continues, “but again, we don’t even need to know all of that to know that this is just the nature of sin: It takes you from one thing to the other.”
She argues that between Grande’s sickly weight, her new dark image, and her dating Ethan Slater, her “Wicked” co-star who was married and had a child, Grande should be “a very controversial figure.”
“But instead her posts still get millions of likes. People still praise her as being beautiful and wonderful,” says Allie. “I’m like, ‘No, this girl is on the brink of death, fantasizing and glorifying murder — the last thing our culture needs right now. And she’s a home-wrecker.”’
To hear more, watch the video above.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Allie beth stuckey, Ariana grande, Hollywood, Spiritual warfare, Blazetv show
The dating data nobody is telling men: ‘You were both lied to’
Why are so many young Americans struggling to find lasting relationships? According to BlazeTV host Nick Freitas, the answer has a lot to do with the way modern dating has not only been influenced by feminism — but has been reshaped by the apps.
These apps, Freitas says, have created a “fake environment” where men get far less attention than women do.
“On Tinder, men’s average match rate is 5.26%. Women’s is 44.4%. So that’s an eight times difference, roughly. On Hinge, men swipe right on 61% of profiles. Women swipe right on 5% of profiles,” he explains.
“This part blew my mind. There’s a huge gender skew, like on Tinder, 67%-76% of the people on there are male. For Hinge it’s 60%-40%; for Bumble it’s 54%-46%,” he continues.
“On all these platforms where, again, we’re being told to go find people … it’s even worse, because one of the things that women typically need to truly be attracted to a man is they actually need to be able to be in proximity toward them,” he adds.
And an Institute for Family Studies study found that couples who meet in real life are much happier than ones who met online — and there’s good reason for it.
“Modern dating is already set up for failure, which is to say that you’re essentially putting on a performance for another human being. But your ability to perform outside of who you really are is far more limited in person than it is online, especially when we have all kinds of enhancements and filters and everything else that are going on,” Freitas explains.
However, as men and women begin to point the finger at each other for the growing issue of modern dating, Freitas points out that there’s something they both need to realize.
“As we go into this final phase talking about what should you be doing is men, you have every right to be pissed at the system that was set up for you,” he says.
“What I want you to understand is that it’s harder sometimes to understand how the women were also lied to because the women were lied to in a very, very different direction. You were put down by the system; they were built up by it,” he explains.
“But you were both lied to,” he adds.
Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.
Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.
Dating apps, Modern dating, Nick freitas, Online dating, Feminism, Data, Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, Blazetv show