Podcasts about Criticism

In this episode: ‣ Trump at 31% in new AP poll, with 69% disapproving ‣ One month before midterms ‣ Mortgage rates 7.28% ‣ Trump underwater on immigration and inflation, the two issues he won on ‣ Republicans asking him to stay away ‣ Christa Pike still alive after Tennessee's 2nd botched execution, ‣ Fox News has James Talarico leading Ken Paxton 51–49 in Texas. ‣ Pete Hegseth told troops the Iran war is won ‣ Warns it's "treason" to say otherwise ‣ Elon Musk put in charge of buying the weapons he sells to Pentagon ‣ Senator Eric Schmitt's faceplant gets worse ‣ Congresswoman LaMonica McIver gives birth to second daughter while facing 17 years for brushing up against ICE agent.

October 1, 2026: 8am — Trump defends GOP convention after Paxton's criticism To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sanjana and Tyler dive into romance criticism, the newsletters keeping it alive, and why even a good hater should be devoted. Then Bad Words author Rioghnach Robinson joins to talk about turning book criticism into a whole (extremely compelling!) enemies-to-lovers plot. Plus: the best sex scenes Sanj and Tyler read this month, from Scandalized to a stalker romance involving a multi-tasking hockey stick. The Substack romance criticism reading list: Sanjana’s own Underlined, the trio of newsletters from the Reformed Rakes podcast crew (Sawyer Upton’s The Loose Cravat, Beth Haymond’s Ministrations, and Emma Kearney’s Restorative Romance), and Andrea Martucci’s Shelf Love. Rioghnach Robinson’s adult romance debut, Bad Words, is out Oct. 6, and it’s enemies-to-lovers done right. This month’s best sex scenes: Scandalized by Lauren Billings (one half of Christina Lauren) and Midnight Message by Avina St. Graves (on KU). Also: Come hang with Sanj and Tyler at RomCon on Saturday, October 24, in Industry City, Brooklyn. Guests include Brooke Averick, Regina Black, Hannah Brown, Sarah MacLean, Casey McQuiston, Nikki Payne, and more! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Villain-Venice-Steampunk-Adventure-Expanded/dp/B0GYVW1ZM3?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE notes from wiki This article is about the novel. For the 1997 film, see Starship Troopers (film). For other uses, see Starship Troopers (disambiguation). Starship Troopers First edition hardcover Author Robert A. Heinlein Cover artist Jerry Robinson Language English Genre Military science fiction Philosophical fiction[1][2][3] Publisher G. P. Putnam's Sons Publication date November 5, 1959[4] Publication place United States Media type Print (hardcover and paperback) Pages 263 (paperback edition) Award Hugo Award for Best Novel (1960) ISBN 978-0450044496 Online Computer Library Center number"}]]}"> OCLC 2797649 Library of Congress Classification"}]]}"> LC Class PZ7.H368 Su Starship Troopers is a military science fiction novel by American writer Robert A. Heinlein. Written in a few weeks in reaction to the US suspending nuclear tests,[5] the story was first published as a two-part serial in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction as Starship Soldier, and published as a book by G. P. Putnam's Sons on November 5, 1959.[4] The story is set in a future society ruled by a human interstellar government called the Terran Federation, dominated by a military elite. Under the Terran Federation, only veterans of a primarily military Federal Service enjoy full citizenship, including the right to vote.[6] The first-person narrative follows Juan "Johnny" Rico, a young man of Filipino descent, through his military service in the Mobile Infantry. He progresses from recruit to officer against the backdrop of an interstellar war between humans and an alien species known as "Arachnids" or "Bugs". Interspersed with the primary plot are classroom scenes in which Rico and others discuss philosophical and moral issues, including aspects of suffrage, civic virtue, juvenile delinquency, and war; these discussions have been described as expounding Heinlein's own political views.[7] Identified with a tradition of militarism in US science fiction,[8] the novel draws parallels between the conflict between humans and the Bugs, and the Cold War.[9] It is also a coming-of-age novel, which criticizes the US society of the 1950s, arguing that a lack of discipline had led to a moral decline, and advocating corporal and capital punishment.[7][10] Starship Troopers brought to an end Heinlein's series of juvenile novels. It won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960,[3] and was praised by reviewers for its scenes of training and combat and its visualization of a future military.[11][12] It also became enormously controversial because of the political views it seemed to support. Reviewers were strongly critical of the book's intentional glorification of the military,[13][14] an aspect described as propaganda and likened to recruitment.[15] The novel's militarism, and the fact that government service – most often military service – was a prerequisite to the right to vote, led to it being frequently described as fascist.[14][16][17] Others disagree, arguing that Heinlein was only exploring the idea of limiting the right to vote to a certain group of people.[18] Heinlein's depiction of gender has also been questioned, while reviewers have said that the terms used to describe the aliens were akin to racial epithets.[19] Starship Troopers had wide influence both within and outside science fiction. Ken MacLeod stated that "the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein".[2] Science fiction critic Darko Suvin wrote that it is the "ancestral text of US science fiction militarism" and that it shaped the debate about the role of the military in society for many years.[20] The novel is credited with popularizing the idea of powered armor, which became a recurring feature in science fiction books and films, as well as an object of scientific research.[21] Heinlein's depiction of a futuristic military was also influential.[22] Later science fiction books, such as Joe Haldeman's 1974 anti-war novel The Forever War, have been described as reactions to Starship Troopers.[23] The story was adapted several times, including in a 1997 film version directed by Paul Verhoeven that satirized what the director saw as the fascist aspects of the novel.[24] Writing and publication The cover of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction (November 1959), illustrating Starship Soldier Robert Heinlein was among the best-selling science fiction authors of the 1940s and 1950s, along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke; they were known as the "big three" that dominated US science fiction. In contrast to the others, Heinlein firmly endorsed the anti-communist sentiment of the Cold War era in his writing.[25] Heinlein served in the US Navy for five years after graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1929. His experience in the military profoundly influenced his fiction.[26] At some point between 1958 and 1959, Heinlein put aside the novel that would become Stranger in a Strange Land and wrote Starship Troopers. His motivation arose partially from his anger at US President Dwight Eisenhower's decision to suspend US nuclear tests, and the Soviet tests that occurred soon afterward.[5] Writing in his 1980 volume Expanded Universe, Heinlein would say that the publication of a newspaper advertisement placed by the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy on April 5, 1958, calling for a unilateral suspension of nuclear weapons testing by the United States sparked his desire to write Starship Troopers.[27] Heinlein and his wife Virginia created the "Patrick Henry League" in an attempt to create support for the US nuclear testing program. Heinlein stated that he used the novel to clarify his military and political views.[28] Like many of Heinlein's books, Starship Troopers was completed in a few weeks. It was originally written as a juvenile novel for New York publishing house Scribner; Heinlein had previously had success with this format, having written several such novels published by that publisher. The manuscript was rejected, prompting Heinlein to end his association with that publisher completely, and to resume writing books with adult themes.[5][19][29] Scholars have suggested that Scribner's rejection was based on ideological objections to the content of the novel, particularly in its treatment of military conflict.[19][30] The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction first published Starship Troopers in October and November 1959 as a two-part serial titled Starship Soldier.[29] A senior editor at Putnam's, Peter Israel, purchased the manuscript and approved revisions that made it more marketable to adults. Asked whether it was aimed at children or adults, he said at a sales conference "Let's let the readers decide who likes it."[31] The novel was eventually published by G. P. Putnam's Sons.[29] Setting Set approximately 700 years in the future,[19] the book depicts an Earth ruled by a world government run by military veterans.[6] The society is depicted as affluent, and futuristic technology shown as coexisting with educational methods from the 20th century.[19] The rights of a full citizen, to vote and hold public office, are not universally guaranteed, and rather must be earned through Federal Service.[18] Those who do not perform this service (of which only military service has been described) retain the rights of free speech and assembly, but can neither vote nor hold public office. People of either sex above the age of 18 are permitted to enlist; only those who complete their service receive the right to vote.[19][32] Important government jobs are reserved for federal service veterans.[6] This structure arose ad hoc after the collapse of the "20th century Western democracies", driven in part by an inability to control crime and juvenile delinquency, particularly in North America, and a war between an alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, against the "Chinese Hegemony".[33] Two extraterrestrial civilizations are depicted, respectively, as the "Pseudo-Arachnids" (or "Bugs"), and the "Skinnies". The "Bugs" are described as communal beings originating from the planet of Klendathu, and consist of multiple castes; workers, warriors, brains, and queens, similar to those of ants and termites on Earth. The warriors are the only ones who fight, and are unable to surrender in battle.[34] It also is implied that the Bugs are technologically advanced, possessing such technologies as spaceships.[35] The "Skinnies" are depicted as less communal than the Arachnids, yet more so than humans.[36] The events of the novel take place during an interstellar war between the Terran Federation and the Arachnids.[37] At the opening of the story, Earth is not at war, yet such a declaration has come when Rico has completed his training.[5] The "Skinnies" are initially allies of the Pseudo-Arachnids, but switch to alliance with humans, midway through the novel.[36] Faster-than-light travel exists in this future: spacecraft use the "Cherenkov drive", and can travel "Sol to Capella, forty-six lightyears, in under six weeks".[38] Starship Troopers is narrated by the main protagonist Juan "Johnny" Rico, a member of the "Mobile Infantry". It is one of the few Heinlein novels which intersperses his typical linear narrative structure with a series of flashbacks.[5][37] These flashbacks are frequently to Rico's "History and Moral Philosophy" course in school, in which the teacher discusses the history of the structure of their society.[5][18] Rico is depicted as a man of Filipino ancestry. He is from a wealthy family, whose members had never served in the military.[5][19][32] Rico's ancestry is depicted as inconsequential, society having finally abandoned racial and gender-based prejudice.[19] Plot The novel opens with Rico aboard the corvette transport Rodger Young (named after real life Medal of Honor recipient Rodger Young),[39] serving with the platoon known as "Rasczak's Roughnecks". The platoon carries out a raid against a planetary colony held by Skinnies.[19] The raid is relatively brief: the platoon lands on the planet, destroys its targets, and retreats, suffering two casualties in the process. One of them, Dizzy Flores, is rescued by Rico but dies while returning to orbit.[40] The narrative then flashes back to Rico's graduation from high school. Rico and his best friend Carl are considering joining the Federal Service after graduation; Rico is hesitant, partly due to his father's attitude towards the military.[5] Rico makes his decision after discovering that his classmate Carmen Ibañez also intends to enlist.[41] Rico's choice is taken poorly by his parents, and he leaves with a sense of estrangement. He is assigned to the Mobile Infantry, and moves to Camp Arthur Currie (named for Sir Arthur Currie who rose through the ranks to command the Canadian Corps in World War I) on the Canadian prairie for his training under Sergeant Charles Zim.[42] The training is extremely demanding.[43] Rico receives combat training of all types, including simulated fights in armored suits.[44][45] A fellow recruit is court-martialed, flogged, and dismissed for striking a drill instructor who was also his company commander. Rico himself is given five lashes for firing a rocket during a drill with armored suits and simulated nuclear weapons without ensuring that no friendlies were within the blast zone, which in combat would have resulted in the death of a fellow soldier.[46] Another recruit, who murdered a baby girl after deserting the army, is hanged by his battalion after his arrest by civilian police.[46] Disheartened, Rico thinks of resigning when he receives a letter from Jean Dubois, who taught Rico History and Moral Philosophy.[47] Dubois reveals that he was once a lieutenant colonel in the Mobile Infantry, which gives Rico the motivation not to resign.[48] After further training at another camp near Vancouver, Rico graduates with 187 others, of the 2,009 who had begun training in that regiment.[49] The "Bug War" has changed from minor incidents to a full-scale war during Rico's training. An Arachnid attack that annihilates the city of Buenos Aires alerts civilians to the situation; Rico's mother is killed in the attack.[50] Rico participates in the Battle of Klendathu, an attack on the Arachnid's home world, which turns into a disastrous defeat for the Terran Federation.[51] Rico's ship, the Valley Forge, is destroyed, and his unit is decimated; he is reassigned to the Roughnecks on board the Rodger Young, led by Lieutenant Rasczak and Sergeant Jelal.[52] The unit carries out several raids, and Rico is promoted to corporal by Jelal after Rasczak dies in combat.[53] One of his comrades in the Roughnecks suggests that Rico go to officer training school and try to become an officer. Rico ends up going to see Jelal, and finds that Jelal already had the paperwork ready. Rico enters Officer Candidate School for a second course of training, including further courses in "History and Moral Philosophy".[54][55] En route from the Roughnecks to the school Rico encounters his father who has also enlisted and is now a corporal, and the two reconcile. He is also visited in school by Carmen, now an ensign and ship's pilot officer in the Navy, and the two discuss their friend Carl, who had been killed earlier in the war.[56] Rico is commissioned a temporary third lieutenant for his final test: a posting to a combat unit. Under the tutelage of his company commander, Captain Blackstone, and with the aid of his platoon sergeant, his boot camp drill instructor Fleet Sergeant Zim, Rico commands a platoon during "Operation Royalty", a raid to capture members of the Arachnid brain caste and queens.[57] Rico then returns to the officer school to graduate. The novel ends with him holding the rank of second lieutenant, in command of his old platoon in the Rodger Young, with his father as his platoon sergeant. The platoon has been renamed "Rico's Roughnecks", and is about to participate in an attack on Klendathu.[58] Themes Robert Heinlein in 1976 Commentators have written that Starship Troopers is not driven by its plot, though it contains scenes of military combat. Instead, much of the novel is given over to a discussion of ideas.[59] In particular, the discussion of political views is a recurring feature of what scholar Jeffrey Cass described as an "ideologically intense" book.[16] A 1997 review in Salon categorized it as a "philosophical novel".[1] Critics have debated to what extent the novel promotes Heinlein's own political views. Some contend that the novel maintains a sense of irony that allows readers to draw their own conclusions; others argue that Heinlein is sermonizing throughout the book, and that its purpose is to expound Heinlein's militaristic philosophy.[16][18] Militarism Starship Troopers has been identified as being a part of a tradition in American science fiction that assumes that violent conflict and the militarization of society are inevitable and necessary.[8] Although the Mobile Infantry, the force to which Rico is assigned, is seen as a lowly post by the characters in the story, the novel itself suggests that it is the heart of the army and the most honorable unit in it.[43] In a commentary written in 1980, Heinlein agreed that Starship Troopers "glorifies the military ... Specifically the P.B.I., the Poor Bloody Infantry, the mudfoot who places his frail body between his loved home and the war's desolation – but is rarely appreciated ... he has the toughest job of all and should be honored."[13] The story is based on the social Darwinist idea of society as a struggle for survival based on military strength. It suggests that some conflicts must be resolved by force: one of the lessons Rico is repeatedly taught is that violence can be an effective method of settling conflict.[19] These suggestions derive in part from Heinlein's view that in the 1950s the US government was being too conciliatory in its dealings with communist China and the Soviet Union.[17][59][60][61] Heinlein draws an analogy between the human society in the novel, which is well-to-do but needs to be vigilant against the imperialist threat of the Arachnids, and US society of the 1950s. Reviewers have suggested that the Arachnids are Heinlein's analogue for communists. Traits used to support this include the communal nature of the Arachnids, which makes them capable of a much higher degree of coordination than the humans. Bug society is once explicitly described as communist, and is moreover depicted as communist by nature; this has been read as implying that those with a different political ideology are analogous to alien beings.[9][19][62] The related motifs of alien invasion, patriotism, and personal sacrifice during war, are present, as are other aspects of US popular culture of the 1950s.[17] Commentators have argued that Heinlein's portrayal of aliens, as well as being a reference to 1950s communist countries, aims to "reinscribe the ideologies of America's mythic frontier history". The concept of the frontier includes a social-Darwinist argument of constantly fighting for survival, even at the expense of indigenous people or, in the case of Starship Troopers, of aliens. Heinlein suggests that without territorial expansion involving violent conquest of other races, humans would be destroyed.[63] Scholar Jamie King has stated that Heinlein does not address the question of what the military government and Federal Service would do in peacetime, and argues that Heinlein has set up a society designed to be continuously at war, and to keep expanding its territory.[64] Coming of age Starship Troopers has been referred to as a bildungsroman or "coming-of-age" story for Rico, as he matures through his tenure in the infantry. His training, both at boot camp and at officer candidate school, involves learning the value of militarism, thus inviting the reader to learn it as well.[43] This is especially true of the parts of his training that involve indoctrination, such as the claim by one of his instructors that rule by military veterans is the ideal form of government, because only they understand how to put collective well-being above the individual.[43] The story traces Rico's transformation from a boy into a soldier, while exploring issues of identity and motivation,[18] and traces his overall moral and social development, in a manner identified by commentators as similar to many stories about German soldiers in World War I.[65] Rico's transformation has been likened to the common narrative within stories with military themes by scholar H. Bruce Franklin. This typical narrative is that of a sloppy and unfit civilian being knocked into shape by tough officers, whose training is "calculated sadism" but is depicted as fundamentally being on the right side.[32] The letter Rico receives from Dubois, partly responsible for Rico "crossing the hump" with his training, is shown as a turning point in his development.[19] The classroom scenes embedded in the story serve to explain Rico's adventures, and highlight his reactions to events around. A notable example is the execution Rico is forced to witness after a deserter from his unit murders a young girl; Rico is uncertain of his own reaction until he remembers a lecture by Dubois in which the latter argues that "moral sense" derives entirely from the will to survive.[19][66] The concept of the American frontier is also related to the coming-of-age theme. Young protagonists across Heinlein's novels attain manhood by confronting a hostile "wilderness" in space; coming-of-age in a military, alien context is a common theme in Heinlein's earlier works as well.[67] Rico's coming-of-age has also been described as being related to his relationship with his father; the journey "outward" through the novel also contains a search for Rico's childhood and a reunion with his estranged parent.[68] Moral decline Starship Troopers also critiques US society of the 1950s, suggesting that it led young people to be spoiled and undisciplined. These beliefs are expressed through the classroom lectures of Dubois, Rico's teacher for History and Moral Philosophy. Dubois praises flogging and other types of corporal punishment as a means of addressing juvenile crimes. It has been suggested that Heinlein endorsed this view, although the fact that Dubois also compares raising children to training a puppy has been used to argue that Heinlein was making use of irony.[10] The story is strongly in favor of corporal punishment and capital punishment, as a means of correcting juvenile delinquents, part of a trend in science fiction which examines technology and outer space in an innovative manner, but is reactionary with respect to human relationships.[7][23] As with other books by Heinlein, traditional schools are denigrated, while learning "on the spot" is extolled: Rico is able to master the things required of him in military training without undue difficulty.[19] Dubois also ridicules the idea of inalienable rights, such as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", arguing that people have only the rights that they are willing to fight and die for to protect.[33][66][69] The novel appeals to scientific authority to justify this position; Dubois repeatedly states that his argument is mathematically demonstrable, statements which have led scholars to label the novel "hard science fiction", despite its social and political themes.[70] The "moral decline" caused by this situation is depicted as having caused a global war between an alliance of the US, Britain, and Russia against the "Chinese Hegemony" in the year 1987. Despite the alliance between the US and Russia, this war has been described as demonstrating Heinlein's anti-communist beliefs, which saw "swarming hordes" of Chinese as a bigger threat. The novel draws some comparisons between the Chinese and the Arachnids, and suggests that the lessons of one war could be applied to the other.[69] Reception To Heinlein's surprise,[71] Starship Troopers won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960.[72] It has been acknowledged as one of the best-known and most influential works of science fiction.[2][21] The novel is considered a landmark for the genre, having been described by a 1960 review as one of the ten best genre books of 1959,[73] in a 2009 review as a key science fiction novel of the 1950s,[14] and as the best-known example of military science fiction.[74] The novel has been described as marking Heinlein's transition from writing juvenile fiction to a "more mature phase" as an author.[3] Reviewing the book with others written for children, Floyd C. Gale of Galaxy Science Fiction wrote in 1960 that "Heinlein has penned a juvenile that really is not. This is a new and bitter and disillusioned Heinlein". Rating it 2.5 stars out of five for children, 4.5 stars for adults, and "?" for civilians, he believed that the novel would be "of exceptional interest to veterans with battle experience ... but youngsters will find it melancholy and verbose".[75] Conversely, Michael Moorcock described it as Heinlein's last "straight" science fiction, before he turned to more serious writing such as Stranger in a Strange Land.[76] By 1980, twenty years after its release, Starship Troopers had been translated into eleven languages and was still selling strongly. Heinlein nevertheless complained that, despite this success, almost all the mail he received about it was negative and he only heard about it "when someone wants to chew me out".[71] The novel is highly contentious.[3] Controversy surrounded its praise of the military and approval of violence, to the extent that it has frequently been described as fascist, and its implication that militarism is superior to traditional democracy.[3][77] Heinlein's peers were among those who argued over the book; a comparison between a quote in Starship Troopers that "the noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and war's desolation"[78] and the anti-war poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen began a two-year discussion in the Proceedings of the Institute for Twenty-First Century Studies from 1959 to 1961, with James Blish, Poul Anderson, Philip José Farmer, Anthony Boucher, John Brunner, Brian Aldiss, among those debating Starship Troopers's quality of writing, philosophy, and morality.[79] The writing in Starship Troopers has received varied responses, with the scenes of military training and combat receiving praise. In a 2009 retrospective, science-fiction writer Jo Walton wrote that Starship Troopers was "military SF done extremely well".[18] She went on to argue that "Heinlein was absolutely at his peak when he wrote this in 1959. He had so much technical stylistic mastery of the craft of writing science fiction that he could [tell the story] 'backwards and in high heels' and get away with it."[18] Others referred to it as very readable, and found the military scenes compelling.[3][11][12] Heinlein's descriptions of training and boot camp in the novel, based on his own experiences in the military, have been described as being rendered with remarkable skill.[17] A 1960 review in the New York Herald Tribune praised the "brilliantly written" passages describing infantry combat, and also called attention to the discussion of weapons and armor,[80] which, according to other reviewers, demonstrated Heinlein's "undiminished talent for invention".[19] Scholar George Slusser described the book in 1986 as the "ultimately convincing space-war epic", praising in particular the "precisely imagined" weapons and tactics,[68] while a 1979 science fiction encyclopedia referred to it as the "slickest" of Heinlein's juvenile books.[19] Criticism of the style of the book has centered on its political aspects. Heinlein's discussions of his political beliefs were criticized as "didactic",[11][80][81] and the novel was derided for "exposition [that was] inserted in large indigestible chunks".[80] Author Ken MacLeod's 2003 analysis of the political nature of Starship Troopers stated that it was "a book where civics infodumps and accounts of brutal boot-camp training far outweigh the thin and tensionless combat scenes".[12] Scientist and author Brunner compared it to a "Victorian children's book",[82] while the Science Fiction Handbook published in 2009 said that the novel provided "compelling images of a futuristic military" and that it raised important questions, even for those who disagree with its political ideology. However, it stated that the story was weak as a tale of an alien encounter, as it did not explore alien society in any detail, but presented the Arachnids as nameless and faceless creatures that wished to destroy humanity.[22] Boucher, founder of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, remarked in 1960 that Heinlein had "forgotten to insert a story".[80] A 1979 summary said that though Heinlein's vision might verge on fascism, his tightly controlled narrative made his ideology seem "vibrantly appealing".[19] Criticism of militarism Starship Troopers is generally considered to promote militarism, the glorification of war and of the military.[14] Scholar Bruce Franklin referred to it in 1980 as a "bugle-blowing, drum-beating glorification" of military service, and wrote that militarism and imperialism were the explicit message of the book.[15][83] Science fiction writer Dean McLaughlin called it "a book-length recruiting poster".[84] In 1968 science fiction critic Alexei Panshin called Starship Troopers a militaristic polemic and compared it to a recruiting film, stating that it "purports to show the life of a typical soldier, with a soundtrack commentary by earnest sincere Private Jones who interprets what we see for us." Panshin stated that there was no "sustained human conflict" in the book: instead, "All the soldiers we see are tough, smart, competent, cleancut, clean-shaven, and noble."[85] Panshin, a veteran of the peacetime military, argued that Heinlein glossed over the reality of military life, and that the Terran Federation-Arachnid conflict existed simply because, "Starship troopers are not half so glorious sitting on their butts polishing their weapons for the tenth time for lack of anything else to do."[85] Literature scholar George Slusser, in describing the novel as "wrong-headed and retrogressive", argued that calling its ideology militarism or imperialism was inadequate, as these descriptions suggested an economic motive. Slusser instead says that Heinlein advocates for a complete "technological subjugation of nature", of which the Arachnids are a symbol, and that this subjugation itself is depicted as a sign of human advancement.[83] A 1997 review of the film in Salon stated that the novel could almost be described as propaganda, and was terrifying as a result, particularly in its belief that the boot camp had to be an ingredient of any civilization. This was described as a highly unusual utopian vision.[1] Moorcock stated that the lessons Rico learns in boot camp: "wars are inevitable, [and] that the army is always right".[76] In discussing the book's utility in classroom discussions of the form of government, Alan Myers stated that its depiction of the military was of an "unashamedly Earth-chauvinist nature".[11] In the words of science fiction scholar Darko Suvin, Starship Troopers was an "unsubtle but powerful black-and-white paean to combat life", and an example of agitprop in favor of military values.[81] Other writers defended Heinlein. George Price argued that "[Heinlein] implies, first, that war is something endured, not enjoyed, and second, that war is so unpleasant, so desolate, that it must at all costs be kept away from one's home."[86] Poul Anderson also defended some of the novel's positions, arguing "Heinlein has recognized the problem of selective versus nonselective franchise, and his proposed solution does merit discussion."[87] Complaints were made against Heinlein for the lack of conscription in Starship Troopers. When he wrote the novel, the military draft was still in effect in the US.[88] Allegations of fascism The society within the book has frequently been described as fascist.[14][16][17] According to the 2009 Science Fiction Handbook, it had the effect of giving Heinlein a reputation as a "fanatical warmongering fascist".[6] Scholar Jeffrey Cass has referred to the setting of the book as "unremittingly grim fascism". He has stated that the novel made an analogy between its military conflict and those of the US after World War II, and that it justified American imperialism in the name of fighting another form of imperialism.[89] Jasper Goss has referred to it as "crypto-fascist".[17] Suvin compares Heinlein's suggestion that "all wars arise from population pressure" to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum or "living space" for a superior society that was used to justify territorial expansion.[90] Some reviewers have suggested that Heinlein was simply discussing the merits of a selective versus a nonselective franchise.[18] Heinlein made a similar claim, over two decades after Starship Troopers's publication, in his Expanded Universe and further claimed that 95 percent of "veterans" were not military personnel but members of the civil service.[91] Heinlein's own description has been disputed, even among the book's defenders. Heinlein scholar James Gifford has argued that a number of quotes within the novel suggest that the characters within the book assume that the Federal Service is largely military. For instance, when Rico tells his father that he is interested in Federal Service, his father immediately explains his belief that Federal Service is a bad idea because there is no war in progress, indicating that he sees Federal Service as military in nature. Gifford states that although Heinlein's intentions may have been that Federal Service be 95 percent non-military, in relation to the actual contents of the book, Heinlein "is wrong on this point. Flatly so."[5] Dennis Showalter, writing in 1975, defended Starship Troopers, stating that the society depicted in it did not contain many elements of fascism. He argues that the novel does not include outright opposition to Bolshevism and liberalism that would be expected in a fascist society.[89] Others have responded by saying Showalter's argument is based on a literal reading of the novel, and that the story glorifies militarism to a large extent.[89] Ken Macleod argues that the book does not actually advocate fascism because anybody capable of understanding the oath of Federal Service is able to enlist and thereby obtain political power.[12] Macleod states that Heinlein's books are consistently liberal, but cover a spectrum from democratic to elitist forms of liberalism, Starship Troopers being on the latter end of the spectrum.[2] It has been argued that Heinlein's militarism is more libertarian than fascist, and that this trend is also present in Heinlein's other popular books of the period, such as Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1966). This period of Heinlein's writing has received more critical attention than any other, although he continued to write into the 1980s.[14] Apparent utopianism The setting of the book is presented by Heinlein as utopian; its leaders are shown as good and wise, and the population as free and prosperous.[6][19] Slusser wrote in 1987 that Starship Troopers depicts a world that is "hell for human beings", but nonetheless celebrates the ideology of its fictional society.[83] The rulers are claimed to be the best in history, because they understand that human nature is to fight for power through the use of force.[43] The suggestion of utopia is not explored in depth, as the lives of those outside the military are not shown in any detail.[19][22] The novel suggests that the militarist philosophy espoused by many of the characters has a mathematical backing, though reviewers have commented that Heinlein does not present any basis for this.[18][43] Writers such as Farmer, Robert A. W. Lowndes, and Michael Moorcock have criticized the novel for being a hypothetical utopia, in the sense that while Heinlein's ideas sound plausible, they have never been put to the test. Moorcock wrote an essay entitled "Starship Stormtroopers" in which he attacked Heinlein and other writers over similar "Utopian fiction".[76] Lowndes accused Heinlein of using straw man arguments, "countering ingenuous half-truths with brilliant half-truths".[92] Lowndes further argued that the Terran Federation could never be as idealistic as Heinlein portrays it to be because he never properly addressed "whether or not [non-citizens] have at least as full a measure of civil redress against official injustice as we have today".[92] Farmer agreed, arguing that a "world ruled by veterans would be as mismanaged, graft-ridden, and insane as one ruled by men who had never gotten near the odor of blood and guts".[93] Race and gender Authors and commentators have stated that the manner in which the extraterrestrial beings are portrayed in Starship Troopers has racist aspects, arguing that the nicknames "Bugs" and "Skinnies" carry racial overtones. John Brunner compared them to calling Koreans "gooks".[82] Slusser argued that the term "Bugs" was an "abusive and biologically inaccurate" word that justified the violence against alien beings, a tendency which, according to Slusser, the book shared with other commercially successful science fiction.[62] Some of Heinlein's other works have also been described as racist, though Franklin argues that this was not unique to Heinlein, and that he was less racist than the US government of the time.[94] Heinlein's early novel Sixth Column was called a "racist paean" to a white resistance movement against an Asian horde derived from the Yellow Peril.[95] In 1978, Moorcock wrote that Starship Troopers "set the pattern for Heinlein's more ambitious paternalistic, xenophobic" stories.[76] Robert Lowndes argues that the war between the Terrans and the Arachnids is not about a quest for racial purity, but rather an extension of Heinlein's belief that man is a wild animal. According to this theory, if man lacks a moral compass beyond the will to survive, and he was confronted by another species with a similar lack of morality, then the only possible moral result would be warfare.[92] The fact that all pilots in the novel are women (in contrast to the infantry, which is entirely male) has been cited as evidence of progressive gender politics within the story, although the idea expressed by Rico that women are the motivation for men to fight in the military is a counter-example to this.[18][22] A 1996 science fiction encyclopedia said that like much of Heinlein's fiction, Starship Troopers exemplified "macho male culture".[96] The prosthetically enhanced soldiers in the novel, all of whom are men, have been described as an example of the "hyper-masculinity" brought on by the proximity of these men to technology.[97] The story portrays the Arachnids as so alien that the only response to them can be war. Feminist scholars have described this reaction as a "conventionally masculinist" one.[98] Steffen Hantke has described the mechanized suits in the novel, which make the wearer resemble a "steel gorilla," as defining masculinity as "something intensely physical, based on animal power, instinct, and aggression". He calls this form of masculinity "all body, so to speak, and no brain".[99] Thus, in Hantke's reading, Starship Troopers expresses fears of how masculinity may be preserved in an environment of high technology.[100] This fear is exacerbated by the motifs of pregnancy and birth that Heinlein uses when describing how the soldiers in suits are dropped from spaceships piloted by women.[101] Though Rico says he finds women "marvelous", he shows no desire for sexual activity; the war seems to have subsumed sex in this respect.[19] A 1979 summary argued that despite the gestures towards women's equality, women in the story were still objects, to be protected, and to fight wars over.[19] Influence A real-life concept of powered armor, an idea popularized by Starship Troopers[102] Heinlein's books, and Starship Troopers in particular, had an enormous impact on political science fiction, to the extent that author Ken MacLeod has stated that "the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein," although many participants in this dialogue disagree with Heinlein.[2] Science fiction critic Darko Suvin states that Starship Troopers is the "ancestral text of US science fiction militarism" and that it shaped the debate about the role of the military in society for many years.[20] In addition to his political views, Heinlein's ideas about a futuristic military as depicted in the novel were deeply influential among films, books, and television shows in later years.[22] Roger Beaumont has suggested that Starship Troopers may some day be considered a manual for extraterrestrial warfare.[103] Suvin refers to Juan Rico as the "archetypal Space Soldier".[104] Starship Troopers included concepts in military engineering which have since been widely used in other fiction, and which have occasionally been paralleled by scientific research. The novel has been cited as the source of the idea of powered armor exoskeletons, which Heinlein describes in great detail.[83][105][106][107] Such suits became a staple of military science fiction. Franchises that have employed this technology include Iron Man, Exo Squad, Halo, District 9, Elysium, and Edge of Tomorrow.[21] During the shooting of the science fiction film Aliens, director James Cameron required the actors playing space marines to read Starship Troopers to understand their parts, and also cited it as an influence for the space drop, terms like "bug hunt", and the cargo-loader exoskeleton.[108] Starship Troopers had a direct influence on many later science fiction stories. John Steakley's 1984 novel Armor was, according to the author, born out of frustration with the small amount of actual combat in Starship Troopers and because he wanted this aspect developed further.[109] The "Mobile Suits" from the 1979 Nippon Sunrise anime series Mobile Suit Gundam were inspired by the powered armor from Starship Troopers.[110] The 1988 Gainax OVA series Gunbuster has plot elements similar to Starship Troopers, depicting humanity arrayed against an alien military.[107] Scholars have identified elements of Heinlein's influence in Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card, as well. Hantke, in particular, compares the battle room in Ender's Game to Heinlein's prosthetic suits, stating that they both regulate but also enhance human agency.[111] Suvin suggests parallels between the plots of the two novels, with human society in both stories at war against insect-like aliens, but states that the story of Ender Wiggin takes a very different direction, as Ender regrets his genocidal actions and dedicates his efforts to protecting his erstwhile targets.[104] Conversely, Joe Haldeman's 1974 anti-war, Hugo- and Nebula-winning science fiction novel The Forever War is popularly thought to be a direct reply to Starship Troopers, and though Haldeman has stated that it is actually a result of his personal experiences in the Vietnam War, he has admitted to being influenced by Starship Troopers.[112][113][114] Haldeman said that he disagreed with Starship Troopers because it "glorifies war", but added that "it's a very well-crafted novel, and I believe Heinlein was honest with it".[112] The Forever War contains several parallels to Starship Troopers, including its setting. Commentators have described it as a reaction to Heinlein's novel, a suggestion Haldeman denies; the two novels are very different in terms of their attitude towards the military. The Forever War does not depict war as a noble pursuit, with the sides clearly defined as good and evil; instead, the novel explores the dehumanizing effect of war, influenced by the real world context of the Vietnam War.[23] Haldeman received a letter from Heinlein, congratulating him on his Nebula Award, which "meant more than the award itself".[115] According to author Spider Robinson, Heinlein approached Haldeman at the awards banquet and said the book "may be the best future war story I've ever read!"[116] Harry Harrison's 1965 novel Bill, the Galactic Hero has also been described as a reaction to Starship Troopers,[6] while Gordon R. Dickson's 1961 novel Naked to the Stars has been called "an obvious rejoinder" to Starship Troopers.[117] Ring of Swords, written by Eleanor Arnason in 1993, also depicts a war between two highly aggressive species, of which humans are one. The story deliberately inverts several aspects of Starship Troopers: the story is told from the point of view of diplomats seeking to prevent war, rather than soldiers fighting it, and the conflict is the result of the two species being extremely similar, rather than different.[118] Adaptations 1997 film Main article: Starship Troopers (film) Further information: Starship Troopers (franchise) The film rights to the novel were licensed in the 1990s, several years after Heinlein's death. The project was originally entitled Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, and had been in production before the producers bought the rights to Starship Troopers.[119][120][121] The film was directed by Paul Verhoeven (who found the book too boring to finish), and released in 1997.[122] The screenplay, by Ed Neumeier, shared character names and some plot details with the novel.[123] The film contained several elements that differed from the book, including a military that is completely integrated with respect to sex. It had the stated intention of treating its material in an ironic or sarcastic manner, to undermine the political ideology of the novel.[17][124] The mechanized suits that featured prominently in the novel were absent from the film, due to budget constraints.[99] The film used fascist imagery throughout, including portraying the Terran Federation's personnel wearing uniforms strongly reminiscent of those worn by the SS, the Nazi paramilitary.[125] Verhoeven stated in 1997 that the first scene of the film – an advertisement for the Mobile Infantry – was adapted shot-for-shot from a scene in Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will (1935), specifically an outdoor rally for the Reichsarbeitsdienst. Other references to Nazism include the Albert Speer-style architecture and the propagandistic dialogue ("Violence is the supreme authority!").[126] According to Verhoeven, the references to Nazism reflected his own experience in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands during World War II.[24][127] The film reignited the debate over the nature of the Terran society in Heinlein's world, and several critics accused Verhoeven of creating a fascist universe. Others, and Verhoeven himself, have stated that the film was intended to be ironic, and to critique fascism.[77][128] The film has also been described as criticizing the jingoism of US foreign policy, the military industrial complex, and the society in the film, which elevates violence over sensitivity.[129] It received several negative critical reviews, reviewers suggesting that it was unsophisticated and targeted a juvenile audience, although some scholars and critics have also supported its description as satirical.[21][24][124][129] The absence of the powered armor technology drew criticism from fans.[21][99] The success of the film's endeavor to critique the ideology of the novel has been disputed.[24] Four sequels, Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004),[130] Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008),[131] Starship Troopers: Invasion (2012)[132] and Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars (2017) were released as straight-to-DVD films. In December 2011, Neal H. Moritz, producer of films such as the Fast & Furious series and I Am Legend, announced plans for a remake of the film that he claims will be more faithful to the source material.[133] In 2016 Mark Swift and Damian Shannon were reported to be writing the film.[134][needs update] Animated series Main article: Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles An animated TV series was also released based both on the novel and 1997 film called Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles, it follows the exploits of the Mobile Infantry squad, "Razak's Roughnecks", during the SICON–Bugs War between a newly united humanity and an extraterrestrial race, known as the "Bugs," also sometimes referred to as Arachnids. The show focuses mainly on the Roughnecks' missions, rather than addressing the larger war. Paul Verhoeven served as an executive producer.[135] The show ran for one season from August 1999 to April 2000. Other media From October to December 1988, Sunrise and Bandai Visual produced a six-episode Japanese original video animation locally titled Uchū no Senshi with mobile infantry power armor designs by Kazutaka Miyatake, based on Starship Troopers.[136] Dark Horse Comics, Mongoose Publishing and Markosia hold the license to produce comic books based on Starship Troopers, written by authors including Warren Ellis, Gordon Rennie and Tony Lee.[137][138] Avalon Hill published Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers in 1976, a map-and-counter board wargame featuring a number of scenarios as written in the novel.[139] In 1998, Mythic Entertainment released Starship Troopers: Battlespace. The web-based interactive game, in which players battled each other in overhead space combat, allowed players to assume either Klendathu or Federation roles, was developed alongside the film adaptation.[24][140] Starship Troopers: The Miniatures Game was released by Mongoose Publishing in 2005, a miniature wargame which used material from the novel, film, and animated TV series.[141] Spectre Media released Starship Troopers: Invasion Mobile Infantry, a game for PCs, in 2012.[142] Offworld Industries developed and published the 2023 game Starship Troopers: Extermination, a cooperative multiplayer first-person shooter available for PC.[143]

"If praise defines you, then criticism will destroy you." Who are you still trying to prove yourself to? Maybe you've achieved, worked hard, helped others, and done everything you thought would make you worthy. Yet beneath it all, there may still be a quiet voice asking: Am I enough now? In this deeply personal episode of SoulTalk, I unpack one of the most subtle addictions we carry: the need for approval. Often, it begins early, when we learn which versions of ourselves receive love, attention, and belonging. So we adapt. We perform. And eventually, we can become so focused on being accepted that we lose touch with who we truly are. But approval comes at a cost. Every time you silence your truth, betray a boundary, or choose what others expect over what feels true, you abandon a part of yourself. This episode is an invitation to stop outsourcing your worth and start choosing yourself. Because real freedom begins when you no longer need the world's permission to know: You are already enough. You have nothing left to prove.   TIMESTAMPS (00:00:54) — Who Are You Trying to Prove Yourself To? (00:04:35) — The Hidden Addiction to Approval (00:07:06) — How Approval Seeking Begins (00:09:46) — The Identity You Learned to Perform (00:12:56) — Breaking Free From Praise and Criticism (00:14:20) — Choosing Your Truth Over Their Expectations (00:17:08) — The Power of Radical Self-Acceptance (00:20:00) — Nothing Left to Prove SOME QUESTIONS I ASK Who are you still trying to prove yourself to? Who did you learn to become in order to be loved? Where are you choosing approval over your truth? Would you still want it if nobody knew? What is your need to be liked costing you? Who could you become if you stopped performing? IN THIS EPISODE, YOU'LL LEARN Why approval seeking can become a hidden addiction. How childhood belonging shapes who you become. When adapting for love turns into abandoning yourself. Why praise and criticism can both keep you trapped. How the "invisible audience" quietly runs your life. The real price you pay for being accepted. Why self-acceptance restores your inner freedom. What changes when you have nothing left to prove. GET IN TOUCH: Create a life that is a masterpiece. Join the transformational journey: www.boundlessblissbali.com Email: kuteblackson@kuteblackson.com Website: www.kuteblackson.com  

In the first hour of the Chase & Big Joe Show, Big Joe and Nick Frazier discuss Vanderbilt's matchup vs Georgia and why Joe think its could be ugly for the Commodores, MTSU head football coach Derek Mason joins the show, and the guys ask today's Question of the Day: What's your favorite gas station snack? In the second hour, Big Joe and Nick Frazier share their thoughts on Vanderbilt's upcoming matchup vs Georgia and if the Bulldogs will have extra motivation against former commit Jared Curtis, they react to Derrick Henry's comments on playing against the Titans for the first time since leaving in free agency, Robert Saleh's comments on Cam Ward. In the final hour, Big Joe and Nick Frazier react to Cam Ward's press conference comments on Wednesday, including questions about his footwork, the criticism around his play, and Robert Saleh's comments his pocket awareness. Also, the guys discuss Week 5's college football matchups, Johnny Hobbs joins the show, and the guys close things out with What Day Is It & Celebrity Birthdays!

11am-12pm - Hour in full

Big Mac reacts to the Yankees social media team using Robert Saleh's "All Gas, No Brakes" slogan before their playoff matchup. The discussion also covers Andrew Thomas' injury for the New York Giants and the aggressive bullpen management needed to eliminate the Red Sox. (00:01:00) Yankees And Giants Updates (00:03:44) Yankees Slogan Controversy (00:07:00) Fan Rainout Gripe (00:13:07) Bullpen Strategy Discussion

President Trump says Canada has been one of the worst countries in the world to deal with as his trade fight with our northern neighbor escalates. Does Canada deserve that criticism? Have you spent time in Canada? What do you think Americans misunderstand about Canada? 

     This week John and the Halogram finally take a small trip outside of Rushville, Nebraska, where it's  slightly chilly 36°F (2°C) with brief flurries to a barren dead world where it's a pleasant 22.2°C (72°F) with brief deluge of mind destroying hallucination causing terror rain. Still both prefer it over Nebraska. Join us, won't you?     Lanterns Minisode- A Lime in the Rain

Writer and cultural critic Jamilah Lemieux published a collection of personal essays and testimonies called “Black. Single. Mother.” in March. When she joined Chris to talk about her experience of writing the book and then touring the country to promote it a few months later, she said she'd been changed. “I went into this book wanting to defend us, you know, wanting to stand up for us, wanting to give us our flowers. I've come out of the process of writing the book and living with it in the world and being on tour, I've become radicalized,” she says. “Now I would go so far to say that I think Black single mothers are the most essential group of people in the Black community, and arguably one of the most important, most productive, high-functioning, and significant groups of people in our society.” She and Chris talk about parenting, the manosphere, class, the ways politicians have used – and continue to use – single mothers, and especially Black single mothers, to their own ends, and what she learned about her own family while writing her book. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mike has had enough of Scott Harris after the Tigers' President of Baseball Operations' comments during his end-of-year press conference.

Do the people agree that Michigan football isn't a good team this year?

Giancarlo Stanton's Yankees legacy takes center stage as Evan Roberts pushes back on the criticism surrounding all the regular-season games he has missed. Evan points to Stanton's postseason availability and production, arguing that if October is what ultimately matters for the Yankees, his playoff résumé has to carry enormous weight. The debate turns to how the Yankees should actually use Stanton after more than five months without a game. Rather than disrupt the lineup, the expectation is that Stanton becomes a dangerous late-game bat off the bench. Evan even lays out the dream scenario: Stanton spending the night preparing in the cage before Aaron Boone calls on him for one unforgettable Kirk Gibson-style moment.

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Ad-Free NME, Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here:⁠ ⁠⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠ In this segment of Notorious Mass Effect, analytic dreamz examines Marvel's Wolverine sales and launch performance after its September 15, 2026 release. Alinea Analytics estimates 1.9 million copies and about $130 million in three days, including roughly 1 million digital pre-orders and 22.9% of revenue from physical copies. Sony and Insomniac have not confirmed the figures. The breakdown compares Wolverine with other 2026 PlayStation releases, Death Stranding 2, and Spider-Man 2, then covers mixed reviews, a 77 Metacritic score, audience markets, PS Store rankings, physical-media implications, and possible later catalysts. Strong opening demand is clear; lifetime results remain unproven.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/exclusive-contentPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

United States correspondent, Todd Zwillich spoke to Lisa Owen about a series of taxpayer funded ads lauding the US president, which have copped criticism from both sides of the political aisle. As well as a female prisoner who is set to be executed in Tennessee, which will be the first time a woman has been executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

September 28, 2026 – 6am:Trump's taxpayer-funded political ad draws criticismJohnson warns against politicians ‘promising free things'U.S. Ambassador says Trump offered to sell arms to ChinaKarl Rove highlights Ken Paxtons's scandals in Texas Senate raceWSJ: Egypt warned Netanyahu on impending attack before 10/7AXIOS: Trump says he expects U.S.-Iran talks this week To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux debates bringing back the duel after a caller says legal combat would stop liars, scammers and slander and build more trust among men. Stefan agrees two people can choose to fight without breaking rights, but winning does not prove you are right, families get hurt, the powerful would rig the rules, and they later look at how democracy favors looters over producers.Support philosophy! https://freedomain.com/donate/GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026

Taylor Swift dropped four surprise songs on Friday and the internet hasn't stopped spiralling since. We're decoding the shared-ex theory that has everyone pointing at Joe Jonas, the unexpected apology to Tom Hiddleston nine years later, and the one lyric she refuses to actually say out loud.But not everyone is singing along. With reviews turning brutal and a wild new conspiracy about who really wrote her best albums, we're asking whether anything Taylor releases can ever live up to the legend now.Plus, Sabrina Carpenter has landed one of the most coveted roles in Old Hollywood, and we need to talk about whether the pop star can actually pull it off.Become a Mamamia subscriber and get an all-access pass to everything we make, including exclusive podcasts and early listening, subscriber-only articles, monthly giveaways and our home workout app, MOVE. SUBSCRIPTION GIVEAWAY: The You Beauty hosts have bundled together their all-time favourite beauty products and two Mamamia subscribers are winning the lot. Subscribe to Mamamia to be automatically entered to win. Current subscriber? You're already in the draw. T&Cs apply. Get access to Very Peri, Mamamia's exclusive perimenopause series, for just $59. 25 world-leading experts, over 20 on-demand sessions, available now. We’ve sorted through the noise so you don't have to. Go to veryperi.com.au and join me today. You hot? Same. Buy today and save 40%THE END BITS Find and follow us on socials: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thespillpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thespillpod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thespillpodcast/ Support independent women's media Want to join the conversation? Have feedback or a topic you want us to discuss? Send us a voice message or email us at thespill@mamamia.com.auand we’ll get back to you ASAP! Executive Producer: Monisha Iswaran Mamamia acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which we have recorded this podcast.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The saving power of Jesus Christ overpowers all our insecurities.

Linda Purl has spent more than five decades building an extraordinary career across television, film, Broadway and music. In this episode of Still Here Hollywood, Linda joins Steve Kmetko for a funny, candid and surprisingly personal conversation about Happy Days, Matlock, The Office, Andy Griffith, Garry Marshall, aging in Hollywood and the unexpected love story that brought her and Dallas star Patrick Duffy together.Linda reveals what The Office was really like behind the scenes, why Happy Days had only one bathroom for the cast and crew, and the remarkable story Andy Griffith told her about fighting for his role in A Face in the Crowd. She also opens up about reconnecting with Patrick Duffy during COVID, their nightly Zoom conversations and the moment he finally drove from Oregon to Colorado to see if their friendship could become something more.Plus, Linda talks about returning to the stage, her lifelong love of music, handling criticism, getting older without “giving up,” and how she and Patrick turned a 70-year-old family sourdough starter into Duffy's Dough and a mission to help fight food insecurity.It's Linda Purl, still working, still laughing, still singing and very much Still Here.#LindaPurl, #PatrickDuffy, #HappyDays, #TheOffice, #Matlock, #AndyGriffith, #GarryMarshall, #RonHoward, #Dallas, #StillHereHollywood, #SteveKmetko YOUTUBE CHAPTERS00:00 Linda Purl Is Still Here01:02 Growing Up in Japan07:34 Becoming an Actor10:42 Auditioning for The Office12:17 Garry Marshall and the Happy Days Family14:49 The Truth About Improv on The Office16:20 The Lasting Bonds of Happy Days18:26 Returning to Happy Days as a Different Character20:16 Working With Andy Griffith on Matlock21:58 Andy Griffith's Wild Elia Kazan Story24:30 Linda's Advice for Young Actors27:43 Criticism and Bad Reviews29:21 Social Media and the New Hollywood32:37 Aging in Hollywood34:20 Linda's Other Career as a Singer38:55 Her New Album, From My Heart41:33 Reinvention and Gregory Harrison's Life Lesson44:22 Playing 16 Characters in Crazy Mama47:55 Falling in Love With Patrick Duffy53:05 Patrick's 70-Year-Old Sourdough Starter56:36 Turning Duffy's Dough Into a Business1:03:33 What Linda Hopes People Remember Show CreditsHost/Producer: Steve KmetkoAll things technical: Justin ZangerleExecutive Producer: Jim LichtensteinMusic by: Brian Sanyshyn https://stillherehollywood.comhttp://patreon.com/stillherehollywoodSuggest Guests at: stillherehollywood@gmail.comAdvertise on Still Here Hollywood: jim@stillherenetwork.comPublicist: Maggie Perlich: maggie@numbertwelvemarketing.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The White House is airing three taxpayer-funded television ads featuring President Donald Trump, including one that closely mirrors a 2024 campaign spot. Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the use of public money, while the White House says the ads are public service announcements. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ryan and Dana examine Donald Trump's escalating criticism of Rep. María Elvira Salazar after she publicly broke with him over immigration enforcement and released an ad saying his deportation approach has gone too far.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux answers a listener who asks if he is a hypocrite for treating later contact as evidence against an abuse claim in one case but not in family abuse. He says kids cannot choose or leave their parents and face heavy pressure to stay bonded, while adults can walk away, and he looks at the visit, delayed report and later messages in this case while welcoming the challenge to his consistency.Question:Hi Stef,In the recent Clavicular charges episode you mentioned that you generally find it hard to give accusers much credibility when they stay in positive and affectionate contact with the person they claim assaulted them, and that this contact is evidence against the horror of the situation. I was surprised by this, though you did say residual contact is not absolute proof nothing happened.To be clear, I'm not claiming Clavicular is guilty or that the accuser is telling the truth, this could well be a false or exaggerated claim.I'm currently reading "Talking to Strangers" by Malcolm Gladwell. Spoiler if you've not read it: The former Penn State assistant coach Sandusky case in particular was a shocking anecdote in the book that highlighted that positive residual contact with perpetrators is not uncommon. Many of his victims kept positive contact for years and even brought partners and their children to visit him and the Weinstein case had a similar pattern.I think reasons for this include minimization, denial, normalizing the event, trying to regain a sense of control, practical dependence, power imbalance, and positive elements coexisting with the harmful acts; the same dynamics your shows explain in depth in the context of trauma bonding, repetition compulsion, and secondary gains.So my question is about what makes positive residual contact evidence against credibility for you in one context but a comprehensible trauma response in another? I wonder if you're applying positive residual contact as a "triage mechanism" where no physical evidence and harm has been established so it's serving as a credibility signal, as opposed to a call-in for example where, although it's still a one-sided account, the caller has given examples as evidence of behaviours and events rather than just narrative. Is this accurate?Support philosophy! https://freedomain.com/donate/GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026

     This week a foursome with the ultimate pop diva and divisive actors to grace the silver screen.     A New York auteur goes to Hollywood to direct a drama about abuse. In order to get the performances he wants, he pushes his leads to their emotional extremes. In his quest for raw emotion on film, he doesn't even notice how his own careless behavior erodes all the real relationships around him. A metatextual dive through a film-within-a-film by Abel Ferrara, one of the most staunchly independent and unpredictable American filmmakers, Dangerous Game.     When crime boss and amateur choreographer Big Boy Caprice makes a move to take over all organized crime under his control, only the shovel jawed bright yellow trench coated detective Dick Tracy stands in his way. With only a young orphan witness and sultry singer as the only possible witnesses to Caprice's crimes, Tracy tries to end the reign of the crime kingpin before it begins. A visual treat inspired by the classic 1930s comic strip by Chester Gould that spawned a wave of imitators, Dick Tracy.     Nikki Finn just served four years for a crime she did not commit and is being released early for good behavior. Loudon Trott is a tax attorney on the even of his wedding to the boss's taxi frequenting daughter. When Loudon is ordered to make sure Nikki gets on a bus to Philly and deliver a rare large cat to an eccentric but very rich client, he ends up having the most screwball adjacent day possible and wondering... Who's The Girl?     Roberta is the neglected housewife of New Jersey's Hot Tub King. She occupies her time tracing the misadventures of a young and free pair of lovers through the paper's daily personal ads. When she decides to go witness their next meeting, she ends up drawn into a murderous conspiracy without her memory, accidentally stealing an identity, and living a life she could only fantasize about before. While she remains mostly oblivious, it seems the whole city is Desperately Seeking Susan.     All that and Craig becomes a zephyr in the night sky, Kevin wants to kiss you in Paris, and, oh God,  Dave thinks he's falling. Join us, won't we?   Episode 485: Desperately Seeking Madonna

Thank you Meg Grant, EG, Margaret Ryan, Judy, Heather A Murphy, and many others for tuning into my live video!* Pundits making it clear the GOP is heading for an electoral disaster* Farmers are starting to wake up* Tucker Carlson calls for removing Trump from office* Trump throwing three-quarters of a million people off of health insuranceReal Time Chat AnalysisThe chats combined strong progressive engagement, economic anxiety, and warm community connections. Participants expressed anger toward Trump, Republican economic policies, corporate power, and threats to public services. Substack carried the larger, more community-centered discussion, while the Facebook-labeled feed featured sharper political exchanges. Across both, participants paired frustration with enthusiasm for continued conversation and organizing.* Economic insecurity drove much of the substantive discussion. [John Cotter] criticized agricultural equipment consolidation and restrictions on farmers repairing their own machinery. [EG] described personal experience with political conformity and peer pressure among farmers. [Lynette] raised transportation and shipping costs, while [John A] advocated solar manufacturing, infrastructure repairs, and high-speed rail as paths toward a stronger economy. These comments reflected frustration with concentrated corporate power and support for public investment that benefits working people.* Healthcare and public-service concerns produced anxiety and anger. [Peter.Sukowski] mentioned signing up for Medicare amid broader criticism of the administration. [EG] raised concerns about benefit interruptions and access to Social Security appointments. [John Cotter] connected the discussion to the dismantling of aid programs. [Bobby K] expressed particularly deep pessimism by predicting social or economic collapse. These exchanges conveyed fear that political decisions would make basic necessities and support harder to obtain.* Participants challenged deregulation and demanded political accountability. [Don] argued that Republican efforts to shrink government weaken accountability for powerful interests. [@AgolfTwittler] connected neoliberalism with privatization, union busting, and unchecked markets. Criticism also reached Democrats: [Adam W.] and [John Cotter] sharply rejected John Fetterman, while [Do U Lie] attacked mainstream Democrats and unquestioning party loyalty. The discussion showed that progressive identification did not translate into blanket approval of Democratic politicians.* The Facebook-labeled conversation became more confrontational. [Erik Hz] repeatedly challenged participants on taxes, media bias, and Kamala Harris's nomination and prosecutorial record. [@AgolfTwittler] defended Harris and disputed those claims, while [May Wood] pushed back against sweeping accusations of liberal media bias. The exchange shifted from policy disagreement toward personal accusations and competing assertions. Its dominant sentiment was combative, with little visible movement toward agreement.* Community warmth persisted despite an interpersonal disruption. [Lynette] welcomed newcomers, shared the evening Zoom invitation, and maintained an ongoing conversation with regulars. [Vegan Cindy], [Judy], [Brittani], and [EG] contributed greetings, humor, and familiarity. An exchange involving [Do U Lie] escalated into profanity and complaints about blocking and exclusion. The transcript establishes a dispute but does not independently establish that organizers banned the commenter from the event. Other participants continued expressing interest in gathering afterward.Overall, the dominant sentiment was anger and apprehension about politics, balanced by solidarity and affection within the audience. Substack showed stronger communal ties; the Facebook-labeled feed showed more sustained ideological conflict. The comments suggest an engaged progressive audience seeking economic security, accountable government, and continued connection.This assessment describes the supplied comments rather than the entire viewing audience and treats participants' factual assertions as claims, not independently verified findings. One practical clarification would help attendees: the advertised 7:00 PM Central Zoom start corresponds to 5:00 PM Pacific, rather than the 6:00 PM Pacific time proposed by [May Wood].Real Time Chat AnalysisThis post has bonus content for paid subscribers. Upgrade to get full access.[WP-ROUTING]Site: PoliticsDoneRight.comCategory: Coffee Party ShowsPubDate: 2026-09-25T15:00:00Tags: Politics Done Right, Donald Trump, Republican Party, GOP, 2026 Midterm Elections, Electoral Accountability, Farmers, Farm Crisis, Agricultural Policy, Rural America, Trump Tariffs, Tucker Carlson, 25th Amendment, Affordable Care Act, ACA, Obamacare, Health Insurance, Healthcare Access, Working Families, Progressive Politics To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the symbiotic relationship between the POTUS and the press, another medical center halts so-called “transgender care” treatments for minors, and one of the most untrue sentences in American history printed in The Atlantic.Part I (00:14 – 07:20)The President of the United States and the Press Corp Need Each Other: The Modern Presidency and the Press Are Locked in a Combative But Symbiotic RelationshipPart II (07:20 – 14:07)Another Medical Center Shuts Down So-Called “Gender Transgender Care” Treatments for Children and Teenagers: This is a Big Development for the NYU Langone HospitalNYU Langone Ends Care for Trans Youth in Deal With Justice Department by The New York Times (Joseph Goldstein)Part III (14:07 – 18:01)‘Why Do Republicans Keep Talking About Transgenderism?' – Democrats Try to Shift the SubjectSherrod Brown Tries a New Retort to Criticism on Transgender Issues by The New York Times (Emily Davies)Part IV (18:01 – 26:48)‘I Clung to This Promise As I Became a Man, a Husband, a Father, a CIA Officer, a Wife, a Mother.' – This is One of the Most Untrue Sentences in American HistoryThe Wrong Kind of American by The Atlantic (Julia Curlee)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Jeff Howe, Bobby Burton, Gerry Hamilton and Rod Babers debate whether the concern surrounding Arch Manning has become overblown. Although Arch is 11-1 across his last 12 starts, his recent accuracy outside the numbers and on deep throws has created legitimate questions. The panel explains how Steve Sarkisian can help his quarterback with easier completions, more creative formations and play designs that consistently scheme Texas' receivers open.The crew also reveals the winning formula Texas should embrace in its SEC opener at Tennessee: establish the power running game, avoid third-and-long and let Will Muschamp's defense set the tone. With the Volunteers vulnerable to explosive runs, can Sark attack Jim Knowles' defense on the ground and use Arch as the complementary playmaker Texas needs to escape Knoxville with a victory? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

      This week- John Stewart goes back to Rushville, a large plant grieves, and we have thoughts about that. Join us, while we discuss "Bad Optics" Lanterns episode 6, won't you?    Minisode- Emerald Optics

If you're leading and nobody's ever criticised you, you're probably not leading much. This week Carson, Chuck, and Ingrid look at what separates a wound that shapes you from noise you're free to release — and why the goal was never thick skin, but discernment. Worth sitting with before you press play: think of the last piece of criticism that actually changed you, not just the one that stung. What made the difference?

Chris pushes back on the criticism of Chicago Bears QB Caleb Williams, 'I have found the last three days, just nauseating.' He and Nate Gatter discuss the 'hot takes' some NFL commentators and fans have taken against Williams following his injury. (Photo by Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)

Aaron Judge's potential return becomes a major Yankees debate as Evan and Tiki weigh whether even a diminished Judge still makes the lineup better and what a World Series run without him could mean for the conversation around his legacy. The Yankees also have one narrow path left to steal the AL East, requiring a perfect finish and help from Tampa Bay. Tiki also goes carry by carry through TreVeyon Henderson's rushing performance after an awkward exchange with a reporter, arguing Henderson had every reason to be frustrated by questions about his consistency.

David Haugh and Jarrett Payton opened their show by pushing back at the national criticism of Bears quarterback Caleb Williams' reaction to suffering a hamstring injury in the team's 9-3 loss to the Vikings on Sunday. Later, they conducted the Pick 6 segment, where they debated the top sports stories of the day.

Jeffrey Epstein's estate drew criticism almost from the moment Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn took control of it because the two men were not neutral outsiders but longtime members of Epstein's financial and legal inner circle. They inherited responsibility for administering an estate worth hundreds of millions of dollars while also responding to lawsuits, government scrutiny and demands from survivors for compensation and records. Critics questioned whether the same people who had helped manage Epstein's companies, trusts and finances should also be the ones deciding how his assets were valued, what documents were produced and how aggressively claims were contested. The estate's temporary claim that it was facing a liquidity crisis, despite the enormous value of Epstein's holdings, only deepened suspicion and forced the victims' compensation program to pause new offers until additional cash became available.The strategy itself was criticized as highly defensive and procedural, with the estate repeatedly fighting over releases, confidentiality, asset restrictions, standing and the scope of what survivors or regulators were entitled to receive. The U.S. Virgin Islands accused the estate of resisting transparency and sought stronger controls over its assets, while survivors' lawyers complained that they were often forced to litigate simply to understand what money and records remained. The estate did ultimately fund more than $121 million in compensation payments, but that did not end the criticism. The central problem remained the same throughout: Epstein's longtime insiders controlled the fortune, the records and the litigation strategy, while the people seeking accountability had to push from the outside for disclosure, access and payment. That structure created an enduring perception that the estate was focused as much on limiting exposure and controlling information as it was on resolving claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Will you stay faithful to God even when your world is crumbling around you? Suffering puts us in a vulnerable state for Satan's attacks. He roams the earth, waiting to pounce until we're weak and at our breaking point.We see this all throughout the book of Job. Satan prowls about, teases him, and uses individuals in Job's life to criticize and hurt him. In this message, Jill teaches us how we can cope with Satan's attacks and come out of the battle victorious. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1141/29?v=20251111

Consider taking out a paid subscription to The Piano Maven podcast via our Substack page (https://jeddistlermusic.substack.com/about), which you also can access by clicking on the "Donate" button here: https://rss.com/podcasts/pianomavenJed goes back 70 years to look through High Fidelity's Record Annual, a compendium of all of the reviews published by High Fidelity magazine in that year. He zeroes in on four releases that continue to hold interest for piano mavens, and what High Fidelity's critics wrote upon their original LP release in 1956. The recordings have stood the test of time, but what about the reviews?Here is a link to browse through back issues of High Fidelity:https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/High-Fidelity-Magazine.htmAnd here is the link to Mortimer F. Frank's article about Standards of Criticism that Jed cites in this episode:https://classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=26605

Jets fans take heat for the atmosphere at MetLife, and Evan Roberts wants none of it. After hours in miserable rain and another crushing loss, Evan defends the crowd, argues the stadium was louder than critics claim and explains why the frustration felt so familiar for a fan base accustomed to painful endings. Tiki Barber and Shaun Morash weigh in on the whiteout, the weather and just how miserable the entire experience became. The conversation then circles back to NFL overtime strategy after Evan realizes he had one detail wrong about the Colts-Chiefs finish. That correction leads to a deeper debate over why teams choosing to defend first may need to stay aggressive on fourth down, and why Aaron Glenn's bigger problem was failing to adjust his overtime plan to what the Jets were actually doing on the field.

In this clip from The Final Word, Chloe is joined by John and Chris to discuss Jamie Carragher's comments on Florian Wirtz with the Liverpool legend claiming 'Wirtz isn't in poor form, this is his level'. DOWNLOAD OUR REDMEN PLUS APP: https://bit.ly/RedmenPlus Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's 5 Yrs Ago Flashback episode of the Wade Keller Pro Wrestling Post-show (9-22-2021), PWTorch editor Wade Keller is joined by PWTorch.com contributor Tyler Sage to discuss AEW Dynamite with live callers, emails, and on-site correspondents from Queens, N.Y. They discuss Kenny Omega vs. Bryan Danielson, Cody Rhodes being booed against Malakai Black, the return of Brandi Rhodes, are Cody and Brandi self-aware of why fans are booing them, Britt Baker vs. Ruby Soho, MJF vs. Brian Pilllman Jr., C.M. Punk addresses Happy Punk criticism, and much more.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wade-keller-pro-wrestling-post-shows--3275545/support.

Alan Dershowitz has faced sustained criticism over both his legal work for Jeffrey Epstein and the depth of his personal relationship with him. Dershowitz was part of Epstein's defense team during the Florida investigation that ultimately produced the extraordinarily favorable 2007 non-prosecution agreement, and he later defended that deal publicly even after its terms became a national scandal. Critics have argued that his role illustrated the enormous advantages Epstein gained from assembling an elite legal team capable of pressuring prosecutors and attacking the credibility of teenage accusers. The scrutiny went beyond the attorney-client relationship because Dershowitz had known Epstein socially for years, visited his properties and flew on his private plane multiple times. Epstein's former housekeeper also testified that Dershowitz had been present at Epstein's Palm Beach residence during the period when underage girls were being brought there, although that testimony did not establish that Dershowitz witnessed or participated in abuse. Dershowitz has consistently maintained that he never saw Epstein engage in sexual misconduct and has said his relationship with him ended years before Epstein's 2019 arrest.The most serious controversy came from Virginia Giuffre, who accused Dershowitz of sexually abusing her while she was being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Dershowitz categorically denied the allegation and fought Giuffre for years in highly contentious defamation litigation, publicly accusing her of lying and attempting to prove that she had misidentified him. In 2022, the two ended their lawsuits with a settlement in which Giuffre said she recognized that she may have made a mistake in identifying Dershowitz.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ouch…that stings! Criticism shows up like an unwelcome stranger poking at our deepest insecurities. It can be true, partly true, or mostly false, and the soul-effect is the same. Pain.  How do we respond to life's critics, to the Vision Vandal's intent on dismantle?  The story of Nehemiah is rich in real-life application even after 2500 years. Look closely, and you'll see a surprisingly powerful way to respond to life's critics. This weekend we move beyond bitterness and frustrated self-talk, and we embrace God's vision for our lives.   First time listening to our podcast? We'd like to get to know you! Do you have any prayer request? Send us a message.  Connect with Us:

Prime Minister Mark Carney is on a diplomatic and domestic blitz. Fresh off talks with French President Emmanuel Macron to deepen ties with Europe, Carney returns to Ottawa tonight as Parliament prepares to re-open. His government's first priority - major economic legislation to fast-track projects and overhaul labor laws. But opposition leaders are bracing for a fight.Also: Kerry-Lynne Findlay, the embattled leader of British Columbia's Conservative Party, has stepped down. In recent days, Findlay's caucus lost 14 MLAs - Eleven of whom resigned, and three who were booted by party leadership. We'll have more on what happened, and where the party goes amid a potential snap election.And: Ed Sheeran is responding to public outcry after opener Macklemore was dropped from his tour over pro-Palestinian remarks. At his first concert since Macklemore's departure, Sheeran apologized to fans in Philadelphia last night -hours after a protest was held near his concert venue. Plus: Ukraine's struggle to fight off Russian drones, UN prepares to select a new leader, The obstacles around reviving passenger rail in Canada, and more.

Yankee fans criticizing Mets supporters for cheering Pete Alonso have a problem: history shows the Bronx did the same thing for Reggie Jackson. Evan Roberts and Shaun Morash revisit Jackson's 1982 return to Yankee Stadium, when fans gave him a huge ovation after he homered off Ron Guidry, and Shaun unloads on anyone trying to lecture Mets fans now. The crew also debates the Jets' first-ever whiteout against Green Bay, with Evan refusing to ditch his green jersey just because the team asked fans to wear white. Plus, the Yankees' fading AL East hopes hinge on Tampa Bay finally losing, and Sterling Shepard's return to New York inspires a look at some of the strangest crosstown reunions in local sports.

In this episode of Conceptually Speaking, I sit down with Sara Hildreth, a former high school English teacher and the writer behind FictionMatters, a reading community devoted to a wide-ranging public conversation about literature and the life of the reader. Like many fellow travelers in the world of bookish new media, Sara's journey toward becoming a “public reader” took off during the pandemic, with her sharing thoughts, analysis, and reviews of literature on Tumblr, Instagram, Patreon, and now the official home of FictionMatters—Substack. It began, however, as an outgrowth of her capstone project at Georgetown University, which wrestled with the importance of teaching fiction in high schools despite mounting pressure to emphasize nonfiction. A question that continues to haunt the field, albeit in new and more pernicious forms in 2026.Our conversation follows a line of inquiry I've been pursuing over the course of this whole season of Conceptually Speaking—what is the relationship between literary studies and the digital? While most of those conversations have been with academics working at the intersection of new media and the humanities, Sara's work represents another important piece of that puzzle: the appetite for literary and intellectual community completely outside the academy. Over the course of our dialogue we consider the possibilities and pressures of contemporary online reading culture, from the hot-takeification of criticism, to the aestheticization of the bookish life, to the question Sara brings to every book she picks up—what is this thing trying to do, and how successful is it?Key Concepts from the EpisodeReading as a Visible PracticeOne's ability to read literature is often misrepresented as a fixed skill and/or a private cognitive act, but serious close reading is an ongoing practice of making predictions, locating patterns, testing possibilities, noticing disruptions, and revising one's understanding as new evidence emerges. These practices aren't natural, but have been inherited from previous literary communities.When the processes that support comprehension and interpretation remain invisible, students may assume that experienced readers arrive at meaning immediately. Making those processes observable helps reframe confusion, uncertainty, and rereading as evidence of intellectual engagement rather than failure.Consider how often students see the process of reading rather than its finished product. What might change if your classroom treated provisional noticing, genuine questions, and revision as central evidence of reading?Interpretation as InquiryLiterary discussion often defaults to judgment: whether a text is good or bad, enjoyable or unenjoyable, worthy or unworthy. These judgments do have a particular role and function, but they can foreclose inquiry when they arrive before readers have identified what a text is attempting to accomplish.Close reading experiences invite readers to attend to a work's purposes, formal choices, historical conditions, genre expectations, and effects. Evaluation then becomes more precise because it rests on an account of what the text is doing rather than on preference alone.Examine the questions that organize your classroom talk and writing. Do they invite students to defend an opinion, or do they create room for students to investigate a text's ambitions, methods, contradictions, and consequences?Criticism as ConversationInterpretation becomes richer when it is understood as a social practice rather than an individual performance. Readers bring different histories, vocabularies, disciplinary knowledge, genre expertise, and lived experiences to a text; those differences can expand what any one reader is able to notice.Contemporary digital platforms have created new access points to literary and cultural criticism, but they can also encourage speed, certainty, and the performance of a finished take. A more durable critical culture leaves room for response, hesitation, disagreement, return, and revision.Consider what your discussion structures reward. Are students primarily speaking to demonstrate what they already think, or are they expected to listen carefully, take up another person's idea, and allow their own interpretation to change?Sara's project, along with other digital literary communities, carry a utopian kernel that I find especially compelling—the possibility that platforms designed to harvest our attention and extract our data might also sustain serious forms of shared intellectual life. FictionMatters is a readerly hub rooted in reciprocity, intellectual generosity, and the belief that readers from different disciplines, generations, and backgrounds can make richer meanings together than they can alone, even if that work happens online. It is also a standing rebuke of the “Death of Reading” discourse. The fact that there are millions of readers in communities just like Sara's make it clear that the appetite for close, rigorous, conversational reading was never the scarce resource—the institutional resources required to sustain it were. Here's to hoping our efforts might make a difference, no matter how small.Links:FictionMatters — Sara HildrethReading in Public — FictionMattersFictionMatters Book Club — Patreon@fictionmatters — Instagram“Love's Work: The Generic Pleasures of Romance” — Anna Kornbluh“Three Theses on the Literacy Crisis” — Becoming LiterarySupport the show

Monique is experiencing conflict with her parents and brother regarding their unsolicited opinions and criticism about her parenting decisions. Got a dilemma? Call 1-800-DR-LAURA / 1-800-375-2872 or make an appointment at DrLaura.comFollow on social media:Facebook.com/DrLauraInstagram.com/DrLauraProgramYouTube.com/DrLauraJoin the Dr. Laura Family!! >> Receive my weekly newsletter, perks, and more! Sign up now, it's FREE > DrLaura.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our NEW RELEASE review podcast, ONE HOT TAKE. Director Padraic McKinley keeps the value front and centre. The most abstract thing in a crime film becomes something with mass that pulls down on a spine. Synopsis: Desperate to save what is left of his family, during the height of the Great Depression a battle-scarred veteran is hired to help smuggle a fortune in gold across 100 miles of impenetrable wilderness. Sean Burns Sean Burns is a film critic for WBUR's Arts & Culture and a contributing writer at North Shore Movies and Crooked Marquee. He was Philadelphia Weekly's lead film critic from 1999 through 2013, and worked as a contributing editor at The Improper Bostonian from 2006 until 2014. His reviews, interviews and essays have also appeared in Metro, The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, The Boston Herald, Nashville Scene, Time Out New York, Philadelphia City Paper and RogerEbert.com. A graduate of New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, Burns was a recurring guest on the late David Brudnoy's WBZ 1030 AM radio show, and in 2002 received an award for Excellence in Criticism from the Greater Philadelphia Society of Professional Journalists. Currently a member of the Online Film Critics Society and the Critics Choice Association, he's also “the most annoyingest person ever,” according to his niece. WEBSITE: splicedpersonality.com TWITTER: @SeanMBurns One Heat Minute Productions WEBSITE: oneheatminute.com TWITTER: @OneBlakeMinute & @OHMPods MERCH: https://www.teepublic.com/en-au/stores/one-heat-minute-productions Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson discuss the DNC’s unanimous support for a resolution calling for the abolition of ICE, the political implications of that vote, and how immigration enforcement has become a major dividing line between Republicans and Democrats. They also examine public statements attributed to Abdul El-Sayed's sister, concerns about ideological activism in higher education, questions raised about the family ties of political commentator Hasan Piker, and the Democratic Party’s relationship with progressive activists and influencers. The Democratic National Committee has approved a resolution supporting the abolition of ICE, a move presented in this episode as evidence of a broader shift toward more progressive and activist positions within the Democratic Party. The discussion examines what that policy would mean for immigration enforcement, public safety, and the party’s political direction.The episode also explores controversies surrounding Abdul El-Sayed, comments and activism attributed to members of his family, and debates over the influence of political activists, academics, and online personalities on Democratic politics. Topics Covered: The DNC resolution supporting the abolition of ICE and its unanimous approval process Immigration enforcement, deportation policy, and border security debates Criticism of Abdul El-Sayed and statements attributed to his family members Activism, anti-capitalist views, and organizing efforts within universities Questions surrounding Hasan Piker, his political influence, and national security concerns discussed in the episode Reactions from Democratic leaders and the party’s progressive wing Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When the power goes out, how long will food in your refrigerator and freezer stay safe? And how bad is it to open the door and check? Consumer Reports has some useful answers that could save you from throwing out perfectly good food—or eating something you shouldn't. https://www.consumerreports.org/home-garden/emergency-preparedness/what-to-feed-your-family-when-the-power-is-out-a4425760304/ Before you trust an airplane, a child's toy or just about anything else, it has probably been subjected to some serious testing—and some of those tests get wonderfully weird. Engineers have fired chickens into jet engines and enlisted real bears to test bear-proof containers. Alex Davies takes us inside this strange, mostly invisible world of product testing. He is a senior editor at Amazon and author of Kobuk the Destroyer: And Other Tales from the Wild, Unseen World of Test Engineering (https://amzn.to/3UR4YEg). You may not consider yourself especially sensitive—but chances are you know someone who feels things more intensely than others. Criticism can really sting, rejection can linger, and an offhand remark can hit surprisingly hard. Why are some people wired this way, and is it something they need to change? Psychiatrist Dr. Sasha Hamdani explains the science of sensitivity, rejection and resilience. She is author of Too Sensitive: Rejection, Resilience, and the Science of Feeling Deeply (https://amzn.to/4c9bgFn). When you are suspicious that someone is lying to you, watching them for clues may be counterproductive. Those commonly believed visual giveaways are often inaccurate. But there is another way to help confirm whether someone is lying that can be much more accurate and it easy to do. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/may/14/hidden-secret-to-spotting-a-liar-voice-inflections PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TREES.COM: Right now, https://Trees.com have great deals on planting essentials, up to half off on select plants. And listeners to our show get 20% OFF their purchase when using the promo code SYSK at checkout. MONARCH: Write your own money story with Monarch! Use promo code SYSK at ⁠https://Monarch.com⁠ to get your 1st year of Monarch Core half off at just $50 VINTED: Ready to clean out your closet and make some extra money?Download the Vinted app for free and start listing! With no seller fees, you keep every dollar you earn and for a limited time, enjoy free shipping in the US on Vinted. WAYFAIR: Ready to upgrade your home for way less? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop all things home and get your space ready for less.  QUINCE: Find your next Fall favorites at Quince! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! DELL: Built for those who want better. The Dell XPS, built for you! INDEED: Get a $75 Sponsored Job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/PODCAST⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben and Ted discuss the upcoming election and a choice between Republican policy achievements and what the more progressive or left-wing direction within the Democratic Party. Much of the latter half of the podcast is devoted to examining statements and positions attributed to Talarico Republican statements regarding taxes, border security, law enforcement, energy policy, and economic issues. Media coverage of the convention, including criticism of major news networks and discussion of an interview with CNN host Caitlin Collins. Criticism of Texas Democratic politician James Talarico, focusing on past statements about capitalism, criminal justice reform, prisons, religion, and social issues. Debate over whether Talarico's public positions align with mainstream Texas voters. Discussion of campaign spending and the Texas race involving Ken Paxton, including references to Republican political strategy leading up to the election. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.