By Brian Martucci of UtilityDive

Executive Summary:

• The White House wants to deploy 300 GW of net new nuclear capacity by 2050 and have 10 large reactors under construction in the U.S. by 2030 while expanding domestic nuclear fuel supplies, according to an executive order signed by President Trump.
• Trump signed three other orders on Friday to accelerate Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews of reactor license applications and reconsider strict NRC radiation limits; expand departments of Energy and Defense roles in nuclear power plant licensing and siting; and speed up deployment of new test reactors.
• Nuclear power advocates hailed the orders as a boon for the industry, but warned that staff cuts at NRC and DOE could slow progress. A representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists said the proposed reforms would make the public less safe.

Shares of publicly-traded advanced nuclear and reactor fuel companies have soared, suggesting investors see Trump’s orders as more than just words on paper. 

Oklo, the advanced reactor developer previously chaired by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, was up more than 20% since Friday afternoon. Oklo’s shares got another boost Tuesday morning as it announced a design and development partnership with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power to accelerate deployment of its Aurora powerhouses.

Shares of small modular reactor developer NuScale and uranium suppliers Centrus Energy and Uranium Energy also rose more than 20% in Friday and early Tuesday trading.

Trump’s “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” executive order called on Wright and other cabinet secretaries to develop a national policy for spent nuclear fuel management. The order singles out recycling and reprocessing activities that could benefit companies like Oklo, which plans to build fuel reprocessing capabilities and is developing reactors that can run on recycled fuel.

Another order, “President Donald J. Trump Deploys Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” calls on Wright “to release at least 20 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium into a readily available fuel bank for private sector projects operating nuclear reactors to power AI infrastructure at DOE sites.” 

Congress last year banned Russian uranium imports from 2028, cutting off a key supply of HALEU in particular and adding urgency to ongoing federal efforts to expand domestic supplies. 

“Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” also calls for the DOE Loan Programs Office to prioritize support for construction of new large reactors and 5 GW of power uprates to existing reactors by 2030. It specifically mentions support for “completing construction of nuclear reactors that was prematurely suspended,” signaling possible LPO support for the completion of the two unfinished AP1000 reactors at Santee Cooper’s VC Summer site in South Carolina.

Recent changes at DOE could undermine that goal, Nuclear Innovation Alliance President and CEO Judi Greenwald said in a statement.

“Recent DOE staffing reductions and proposed budget cuts undermine the Department’s efforts and make it harder to implement these executive orders,” Greenwald said. “We urge the Administration and Congress to adequately resource and staff DOE to meet this moment.”

Greenwald said proposed NRC process changes in another executive order, “President Donald J. Trump Directs Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” while well-intentioned, could also prove counterproductive. 

“NIA has long thought it is important that NRC improve the efficiency of its activities,” she said. “However …[o]ur assessment is that NRC is already making significant progress on reform in compliance with congressional direction including the 2024 ADVANCE Act. It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”

Greenwald added that the “effectiveness, efficiency and independence” of the NRC is essential for public confidence in nuclear power and for ongoing efforts to commercialize and export nuclear technology.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was more blunt in a statement that also criticized the administration’s proposal to involve other federal departments in nuclear reactor siting, licensing and fuel supply.

“The U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” Lyman said. “By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of millions.”

Setting aside potential safety risks, involving the departments of defense and energy could cause needless confusion for nuclear technology developers, said Atomic Canyon CEO Trey Lauderdale.

“New capabilities for the Department of Defense and DOE to license and oversee projects could actually create additional red tape as companies navigate between three new potential oversight bodies instead of one,” Lauderdale said.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

Recently, President Donald Trump has escalated his struggle with Harvard University.

Remember what the issues were.

Harvard had not really followed the letter of the law according to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which it and the University of North Carolina had lost.

In other words, they were, by court order, to stop giving preference in admissions, in hiring, in promotion, in retention on the basis of race, gender, etc., what we would call DEI. Harvard has been skirting that. And I think the data’s pretty clear how they have and no question that they’ve been doing it.

Second, they have also been getting a lot of money from foreign governments, not always fully accounted for, that is reported to the Department of Education, specifically Communist China and Qatar, over the years.

You could make the argument that there have been, in the past, graduations, dorms that have a racial basis, almost a segregation element to them.

You can make the argument that they don’t fully honor the First Amendment when you have guest speakers. Sometimes when they want to give a presentation at a formal lecture or even an informal class, students—while they may be officially discouraged from it—they are allowed, de facto, to shout the speaker down or to protest.

I think there’s no question that there is a climate of antisemitism throughout Harvard. Recently, two Harvard students who assaulted a Jewish student—one of whom was kind of rewarded with a $65,000 honorarium through the auspices of the law school, another one was given an honorific title at a graduation at the Divinity School of marshal. That sent the wrong message.

What I’m getting at is there was a lot of cause for Donald Trump to suggest, “I don’t need this, the country doesn’t need this.” But in his bill of complaints that were contingent on Harvard making compromises, he also got into elements of instruction, curriculum, and hiring.

He said, “Why are you hiring people from only one point of view?” Which I think is indisputable. Very few conservatives. Or one particular take on the American history, i.e., negative. That prompted the Council on Higher Education and other venues that have published it to solicit letters from people who would be called center-right—some of my colleagues at Hoover. And they objected to what Donald Trump’s add-ons were. And I think that’s reflected in The Wall Street Journal column by Jason Riley.

Essentially, they’re saying: We understand when Harvard’s clearly violating laws or charging too much for individual research grants—60% overhead. But now you’re entering the inner domain of the Harvard complex and you’re trying to micromanage and that’s wrong.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t know whether my colleagues and friends on the right have characterized it the way in which the argument is coming from the Trump administration.

They are saying, “This is analogous to immigration. When somebody is a guest and applies to come here in a visa, that’s an invitation. And we don’t have to give reasons why we don’t want a particular person to come to the United States. What the federal government does with its money vis-a-vis private education is kind of like an invitation. They invite us to give them money. And sometimes we don’t wanna do it. Maybe we say, ‘We don’t like Harvard. We like Fresno State.’ And we don’t have to give you a reason at all because it’s not a requirement. It’s a privilege. Some colleges like Hillsdale don’t take any money. They don’t want us to give them money.”

And so, I think the argument from the administration that maybe our right-wing friends are missing is not that the Trump administration doesn’t have a right to go in and micromanage. They’re just saying, “I don’t really wanna give Harvard any money. They’ve got $53 billion. They’re private. They’re not public institutions. But you know, if they ask us and they want money, then we have to look at why we would give it to them.”

And it’s kind of like Mr. Smith coming from Korea or Mr. Jones coming from Sweden. We look at them and we don’t really think they add to the Americans. So, we don’t have an invitation.

It’s kind of like foreign aid. Maybe Denmark wants foreign aid. Maybe Ghana wants foreign aid. And we look at it and then, we’re under no—we can say, “Well, Denmark, you have to give us Greenland—if we want—before we give you foreign aid.” We’re under no requirement to explain every decision we make for an optional gift.

So we would apply that logic. I think that’s what the Trump administration is doing: “Harvard, here’s some money. We don’t really care if you want it or not. But if you do want it, we would suggest that you broaden your curriculum, you give both points of view, and just try to hire more conservatives to balance out. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t worry about it. We’ll just give the money to trade school.”

This is as simple as that.

Via Middle East Eye

Hundreds of Saudi women are being held in “hellish” conditions in secretive care homes, used to “rehabilitate” women banished by their families, according to a report in the Guardian. Over a period of six months, the Guardian collected testimonies about conditions in the care homes, known as Dar al-Reaya. 

The homes are where women are sent by their families or husbands for alleged disobedience, extramarital sexual relations or absence from home. Conditions were described to the Guardian as “hellish”, and included weekly floggings, forced religious teaching and a ban on any contact with the outside world. 

Sarah al-Yahia, who lives in exile and campaigns for the abolition of the homes, said she had spoken to a number of inmates about life in the homes. The women and girls described several abuses, including being given sedatives to put them to sleep, strip searches and virginity tests. 

One woman described getting lashes for not praying, and also getting lashes and being accused of lesbianism for being alone with another woman. 

Yahia herself was threatened by her father that she would be sent to one of the facilities when she was 13. “My father used it as a threat if I didn’t obey his sexual abuse,” she said. 

“I know a woman who was sentenced to six months in jail because she helped a victim of violence,” Yahia added. “If you are sexually abused or get pregnant by your brother or father you are the one sent to Dar al-Reaya to protect the family’s reputation.”

'Utterly alone and terrified'

There have been reports of women committing or attempting to commit suicide due to the abusive conditions, according to rights group Alqst. Saudi officials describe the institutions as “shelter for girls accused or convicted of various crimes who are aged less than 30”. 

It says that they serve to “rehabilitate the female inmates in time of entering the facility in order to return them to their family”. 

Amina, whose name was changed for security reasons, said she sought refuge in a care home in Buraydah, central Saudi Arabia, after being beaten by her father. She found staff at the home to be “cold and unhelpful”, and belittling of her experience. 

Amina said that the facility asked her and her father to write down “conditions”. Her conditions included not being beaten or forced into marriage. However, she said once she was released, the beatings continued, and she was later forced into exile. 

“I remember being utterly alone and terrified. I felt like a prisoner in my own home, with no one to protect me, no one to defend me,” she said. 

Another woman told the Guardian that she was held in Dar al-Reaya after she told the police that she had been abused by her father and brothers. She said she was held there until her father agreed for her to be released, despite the fact that her father was the alleged abuser. 

“If they are serious about advancing women’s rights, they must abolish these discriminatory practices and allow the establishment of genuine shelters that protect, rather than punish, those who have experienced abuse,” Nadyeen Abdulaziz, of Alqst, said. 

Allegations denied

A Saudi spokesperson rejected claims of enforced confinement and mistreatment in the facilities. “These are not detention centers, and any allegation of abuse is taken seriously and subject to thorough investigation,” the spokesperson told the Guardian. 

Image source: Bloomberg

“Women are free to leave at any time, whether to attend school, work, or other personal activities, and may exit permanently whenever they choose with no need of approval from a guardian or family member.”

Since taking de-facto control of the kingdom in 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has overseen a widespread crackdown on dissent, even as he pushed several nominally liberalising reforms.

Those reforms include allowing women to drive, and relaxing restrictions preventing women from travelling without the consent of a male guardian. However in recent years, Saudi Arabia has jailed several women who have spoken out against women's rights and human rights abuses in the country. 

In May 2023, Fatima al-Shwarabi was given a 30-year sentence for anonymously tweeting about political prisoners, women's rights and unemployment. Last January, Saudi activist and fitness instructor Manahel al-Otaibi was sentenced to 11 years for promoting women’s rights on social media.

Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University doctoral candidate and women's rights activist who was handed down a decades-long sentence for her tweets in 2022, was released this year. 

Left-wing activist and U2 frontman Paul David Hewson—better known as "Bono"—made the ridiculous claim that the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) decision to scale back funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has resulted in 300,000 deaths.

"So, so just a recent report, it's not proven, but the surveillance suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cutoff, this hard cut of USAID. So, there's food rotting in boats, in warehouses," Bono told Joe Rogan on the latest episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.

Bono continued, "There is this this this will will f*ck you off. This will not make you happy. No American will. But there is ... I think it's 50,000 tons of food that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas. And that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan, because the people who know the codes or for the warehouse are fired. They're gone."

"And so this I don't know. I just it's and what do you think? What, what is that? That's not America, is it?" the Irish singer questioned. 

Joe Rogan pushes back after Bono blames 300,000 deaths on DOGE cuts.

"[USAID] was a money laundering operation… there's no oversight, no receipts. There is a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering."pic.twitter.com/3bdJ1vpKG1

Rogan pushed back on Bono's claims: The podcaster said global aid programs funded through USAID have done real good—like providing clean water, food, and medicine, however, there has also been massive fraud, money laundering, and a lack of oversight...

Here's Rogan's response to Bono: 

"Well, they're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Right. Right. This is the problem. The problem is for sure there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it [USAID] was a money laundering operation. For sure there was no oversight. For sure. billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for were sent off into various they they don't even know where because there are no receipts. The way Elon Musk described it, he said if any of this were done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be in prison. But in the United States, this is standard.

When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the 73 days, they spent $93 billion from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places. And there's no oversight, no receipts. Like the whole thing, there's a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering, but also we help the world. 

And when you're talking about making wells for people in the Congo to get fresh water, when you're talking about food and medicine to places that don't have access, like no way that should have been cut out and that should have been clear before they make these radical cuts. Like there's got to be a way to keep aid and not have fraud and you can't have you can't say we're going to kill everything so that there's no fraud. But then you're killing all the good and you're doing it without letting anybody know it's going to happen.

So no one's it's not like they had three years to prepare. Let's build a new infrastructure. Let's make sure that everything's set up.

They wanted change and they want to change quickly. And due to the nature of American politics, they have about two years before the midterms, right?

So everything has to get done as quickly as possible. You have to show a GDP growth. You have to show that the economy is booming again under these ideas. Make America first, tariffs for the world, bring back American manufacturing, and this mad rush to do it all as quickly as possible while cutting out as much waste as possible. Yeah. But the ironic thing is even though Elon Musk has proposed all these things and the Doge committee has proposed all these things, they've made no cuts in terms of the budget."

Watch

It is worth noting that Bono's claim may be based on projections by Brooke Nichols, a mathematician and infectious disease professor at Boston University, who modeled an estimated 300,000 deaths, with over 200,000 of them being children. However, much like weather models, these projections are highly speculative and come with significant uncertainty.

For context, Bono is involved in several nonprofit and philanthropic initiatives focused on combating poverty and disease and promoting social justice.

His key nonprofit affiliations include

ONE Campaign

Co-founded by Bono in 2004, the ONE Campaign is an international, non-partisan, nonprofit organization advocating for investments to create economic opportunities and improve health in Africa. It utilizes data, grassroots activism, and political engagement to influence policy decisions aimed at ending extreme poverty and preventable diseases.

RED

Established in 2006 by Bono and Bobby Shriver, (RED) partners with iconic brands to raise awareness and funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Proceeds from (RED) products go directly to the Global Fund to support health programs in Africa.

DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa)

Founded in 2002, DATA aimed to raise awareness about Africa's challenges related to debt, AIDS, and trade. The organization focused on influencing policy and public opinion in developed countries to support Africa's development. In 2007, DATA merged with the ONE Campaign to consolidate efforts.

EDUN

In 2005, Bono and his wife, Ali Hewson, launched EDUN, a fashion brand promoting fair trade and ethical practices in Africa. The initiative aimed to stimulate sustainable employment and growth in developing regions through the fashion industry.

The Rise Fund 

Bono co-founded The Rise Fund in 2016, a global impact investing fund managed by TPG. The fund invests in companies that deliver measurable social and environmental impact alongside competitive financial returns.

Making sense of Bono's claims—and his information war against DOGE—requires following the money. Specifically, the ONE Campaign, which he co-founded, receives major funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bono's comments mirrors Bill Gates' recent anti-DOGE media blitz, as seen across corporate outlets:

• "Gates Is A Huge Liar": Musk Hits Back After Bill Gates Claims DOGE 'Killing World's Poorest Children'

Gates is a huge liar

Bill and Bono in 2006.

Bono and failed far-left presidential candidate Kamala Harris. 

Sigh. 

SOME NEWS: Bono takes U2 on a break from Achtung Baby to perform “All I Want is You” and dedicates song to all women in world, on their crew, women experiencing hardship in world. Then he dedicates it to special guest in Sphere audience…”your First Lady, Jill Biden.” pic.twitter.com/CF4nGlYmYV

Play the DC Swamp game, and get an award. 

Bono receives his Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/TISAgAzayZ

At the end of the day, only the grifters scream the loudest. Gates and Bono want the taxpayer-funded money spigot turned back on.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“The modern politics of division have become a banally hectoring faux morality play put on by the theater kids for the other theater kids.”

- El Gato Malo on X

While Jake Tapper leads the Mea Culpa Chorus singing Kumbaya in a minor key, absolutely nobody is fooled that the grotesque psychotic deformities of US politics can be reduced to a few White House factotums lying to the news media about “Joe Biden’s” cognitive abilities. For one thing, the news media was not lied to. The news media (including Jake) lied to the nation, consistently, flagrantly, mendaciously, for years, and most of all they lied about the gigantic racketeering operation that government had become in the age of Anything Goes and Nothing Matters.

Cases-in-point, as reported by Alex Krainer, the $93-billion barfed out of the Department of Energy between the November election and January 20 to scores of hastily-formed NGO gangs with no business model or record of competency. . . and the staggering $375 billion spread around similarly out of the EPA from a slush fund run by John Podesta (as Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy and Clean Energy Innovation).

That was pure grift, you understand, and it was how the Democratic Party kept its activist troops of the so-called “marginalized” paid and happy. As it happened, the “marginalized” who dwell on the edge of society — and also just beyond the set of agreements that define reality — are out-numbered by the rest of us, who voted against the tyranny of the margin and their hallucinations. And so now, the country goes through a convulsion attempting to readjust to reality — for instance, the unhappy fact that all that money was unreal, mere bookkeeping entries by dishonest accountants.

One reality we struggle with is the doleful fact that there is no work-around for the nation’s monumental debt. Since it can’t possibly be paid off, there are two stark paths for it: default and ruinous deflation (that is, money vanishes and the nation goes broke); or a futile attempt to inflate it away with more fake money creation (you’ll have money, but it’s increasingly worthless, so you’re effectively broke). Either way, you’re broke. In the meantime, the remorseless interest that has to be paid on $36.2-trillion squeezes out everything else we’re supposed to care for as relates to the common good.

Every broke-ass family or individual person knows how debilitating money-worries can be. And since unpayable debt is the common denominator across all of Western Civ, this perhaps explains the gross, suicidal mental disorder displayed lately by leadership all across Europe, North America and Anglo-Oceania. Europe, especially, exhibits behavior that is completely cuckoo — inciting war with Russia, inviting in murderous hostiles from foreign lands, and sadistically policing their own citizens.

The exception is Mr. Trump, a businessman-outsider to government trying to pull off an escape from the deadly debt quandary. It’s probably impossible, but he is trying nonetheless. It has three main features:

1) to readjust trade relations that, in theory, would restore industrial production across the land — a bootstrapping operation to kick off “growth.”

2) to engineer a severe re-set of the money system that would effectively amount to defaulting on debt but somehow without the feature of disappearing money. At best, this would induce some kind of fall in living standards, but mostly among the small sector of financial buccaneers who thrive on swindles and the Boomers living on investment accounts (figment wealth), who are now dying off anyway — which is to say, Great Depression Lite. And

3) the least understood feature of Trumpism: to decouple the USA from the resource scarcity in the rest of the world, and the consequent strife it’s inducing, and withdraw into a sort of Fortress North America that can somehow carry-on self-sufficiently while everybody else collapses.

As big pictures go, this is a pretty wild one, stupendously ambitious, risky, and perhaps improbable. But what do Mr. Trump’s domestic opponents have to offer? To go back to their asset-stripping operation with its insane sideshow of race-and-sexual hoaxes and hustles? Let’s face it, the Democratic Party has utterly shot its wad. If it tries to start another civil war, it will have its ass handed to it. Despite all the desperate, rear-guard lawfare underway now, the party is already withdrawing into the political thickets to hide while it considers some drastic reorganization of its purpose and personnel. It may skulk there for many years, just as it did between James Buchanan (1857) and Grover Cleveland (1885).

And despite his daunting agenda, Mr. Trump at least presents a sense of confident determination to get the country righted in some fashion, to recover a sense of purpose and enterprise after years of feckless, dissipative drift into the hallucinatory madness of the Left. You must give him a chance. There is no one else right now with no other way.

Earlier this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for a three-way summit with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, despite that at this moment the war is arguably hotter and more dangerous than ever, given aerial strikes between the warring sides have been escalating for many consecutive days. "If Putin is not comfortable with a bilateral meeting, or if everyone wants it to be a trilateral meeting, I don't mind. I am ready for any format," Zelensky had said in the middle of the week.

Zelensky said he's ready for a "Trump-Putin-me" meeting, but simultaneously called for Washington to slap more sanctions on the Kremlin. "We are waiting for sanctions from the United States of America," the Ukrainian leader said. And Trump's response?... "If I think I’m close to getting a [peace] deal, I don’t wanna screw it up by doing that," he told reporters at the White House.

Deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former president Dmitry Medvedev has written in a Friday Telegram post that Zelensky is merely clout-chasing in wanting the two more powerful leaders at the table.

Describing that the reason is "obvious enough" - Medvedev wrote that:

“A three-way conversation means [he] can get a massive legitimacy boost by latching onto the clout of those at the table,” the Russian official claimed. Medvedev also surmised that Zelensky could capitalize on such a meeting domestically, using it as a pretext to put off elections further and to convince Ukrainian elites that “now is not the time to change horses in midstream.”

Indeed Zelensky could be feeling greater pressure on the domestic front, especially given the ongoing deeply unpopular mobilization and recruitment policies, which has involved preventing most able-bodied men from leaving the country, and which has seen brutal efforts to grab potential recruits from off the streets. Russia has called him 'illegitimate' for having long ago canceled elections amid martial law.

Naturally, Moscow is not taking kindly to Zelensky simultaneously calling for yet more US sanctions on Russia, even as he calls for a three-way meeting.

"Trump confirmed that if Russia does not stop, sanctions will be imposed," Zelensky had said in the comments which were published Wednesday. 

"We discussed two main aspects with him – energy and the banking system. Will the U.S. be able to impose sanctions on these two sectors? I would very much like that."

Trump admin officials have meanwhile been teasing a timetable of weeks, saying the clock is ticking for Moscow to show progress in peace negotiations - the next round which is set for Monday in Istanbul - as the US president himself has warned Putin against "tapping us along". Trump has said he is two weeks away from having an understanding if Putin is serious about peace.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At some point in this century, I began to watch movies with grave trepidation. There is a good chance that somewhere in whatever film, the moment would come when the producer would send some strange political message with a barely guarded attack on some fundamental tenet of bourgeois society. They began eschewing art for hectoring.

A poster of the movie “Snow White” (2025). Walt Disney Pictures

We watch movies by choice. We pay to see them mostly. Why should we do this if the point of the movie is to sneakily attack core values and preach some strange woke creed? Stung too many times, I’m far more careful to avoid anything that seems coded with a political purpose in mind. Life is too short.

This is why I never bothered to watch the live action version of “Snow White” that came out this year. It was coded left and revisionist even in the promotion. It was met with terrible reviews, and goes down in history as one of the worst film investments ever made by Disney. It could easily have been otherwise.

The mystery to me is why Disney could not have known the result from the beginning. Why would this company spend $250 million on a sure loser? To understand, we need to explore the ways in which ideological fanaticism eats away at rationality.

Fortunately in our times, anyone can hop over to a free movie site that is ad-supported like Tubi (the third most popular service after Netflix and Amazon Prime) and have thousands of great shows and movies immediately available. It’s not all there but there are true treasures awaiting.

I vaguely recall when “On Golden Pond” came out in 1981. It was considered old-fashioned and slightly boring, an attempt to deploy two scions of Hollywood (Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn) in their late years toward box office success. The movie then won three Oscars and was a huge triumph. Apparently Fonda and Hepburn had never met before the film but they were just magic together.

The beauty of the film is indescribable. It is set at the classic New England lake of a New Hampshire summer cottage at the height of nature’s beauty, revealing the tender relationship of this aging couple. She is an ebullient lover of nature, games, and life, and he is a crabby retired professor with a crusty outer way but beautiful inner soul. The theme of death looms large throughout. I cannot think of a film that more authentically portrays the struggles of aging.

Their daughter is played by Jane Fonda at her prime. She arrives with a new boyfriend who is a single father of a boy of 13 who is already jaded and cynical. A relationship forms between the old man and the boy, based on various activities of summer like boating, fishing, and swimming.

The father reveals a secret that there is a big trout he calls Walter who has evaded capture for many years. They hunt this fish for weeks, catching many others along the way but not the one they want. As the movie closes, they finally do snag Walter but let him go out of respect for his size, might, and long life.

All of which recalls the huge drama of another great book made into several films: “Moby Dick” by Herman Melville. It’s one of the great American novels, oddly dreaded more than thoroughly read. Written in 1851, its tremendous fame is due to its detailed accounting of the whaling industry and culture in a time when whale oil was the resource most in demand for lighting before electricity came along.

Captain Ahab puts together a whaling expedition but with a fanatical desire to get the biggest whale of all, the one that caused him to lose a leg. The purpose of the trip is not profits but revenge, which the sailors on the boat knew but had underestimated the power of their captain’s obsession. The journey takes them as far as the South China Sea and ends with a grave lesson about the problem of single-minded obsessions untempered by concern for others and the larger context.

The reader or viewer is a fan of the Captain and his genius for as long as possible, truly hoping that he gets his wish. The lesson of the story only comes with the ending of doom, and only in reverse is it obvious that he allowed his obsession to cloud all his judgment.

A poster of the movie “On Golden Pond” (1981). IPC Films/Universal Pictures

The search for the fish in “On Golden Pond” is rational and sporting by comparison. Both stories are set in New England and surely the parallels here are not accidental. One shows destructive fanaticism and the other shows a tempered and loving ambition.

Both films are what my mentor Murray Rothbard called “movie movies,” meaning that they are deep, exciting, emotionally rich, wonderful and evocative to watch, and barren of hidden and manipulative attempts to browbeat or manipulate the politics of the viewer. Young people today who don’t watch older movies probably do not know the meaning of such things.

Murray did not review “On Golden Pond,” so far as I know, but I feel sure that he would have adored the film. Truly, I was taken aback by the innocence of the plot and the comfort that comes with realizing that at no point in the movie would the other shoe drop and we would be presented a lecture on the evils of normal society.

That’s true for most movies made in the 20th century before ideology came along to ruin them. We can think of identitarian politics as the equivalent of Captain Ahab’s whale, something the left has pursued with fanatical vigor even to the point of its own self-destruction. I see this operating at the New York Times, in large corporations, and in sectors of government where a single idea has swamped all rationality and even concern for the metrics of profitability.

The role of Moby Dick in this case is occupied by a malevolent vision of “white” Christian society—and the values that undergird it—as irredeemably corrupt and worthy only of being destroyed. In the past 10 years, it got so out of hand that a small but powerful coterie of writers tried to change the date of the founding of America and wage a wild war on the president who they believed to represent everything they hated.

There is truth to the observation that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has ruined vast amounts of art, journalism, commentary, and culture. There is plenty with which to disagree in Trump’s first and second term, and nothing wrong at all making that clear. The problem comes with the single-minded obsession that pursues the whale at the expense of everything else.

The right approach is the one taken by Henry Fonda toward “Walter” the trout. There is adventure in the hunt. Politics as a normal sport is a great thing. It sharpens skills at observation, argumentation, and rhetoric. Unlike Henry who lets the fish go once it is caught, Trump’s enemies have raised the stakes to the highest-possible level, attempting to jail him and worse.

We live in changing times when woke ideology is on the ropes, banned in many sectors of society and defunded according to policy. That said, the apparatus of understanding behind the ideology will long endure in culture, deeply institutionalized in academia, professional societies, and media. It’s true for films too.

Good movies might make a comeback—and perhaps that is happening now—but if you are like me, I wait until the reviews are out and eschew anything coded left simply because I don’t want to pay to be insulted. For now, I take recourse in the beauty and luxury of the older movies without the fanaticism that has compromised so much elite culture.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authroed by Lika Kobeshavidze via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Across college campuses, on TikTok feeds, and in everyday conversations, a familiar narrative is gaining steam: capitalism is broken.

Custom image by FEE

Rising rents and stagnant wages fuel the claim among some young people that free markets have failed an entire generation. According to a 2024 poll by the Institute of Economic Affairs, more than 60 percent of young Britons now view socialism favorably. In the United States, the trend is similar, with Generation Z increasingly skeptical of capitalism’s promises.

But much of this idealism is rooted in distance—many of the young people romanticizing socialism have never lived through the economic dysfunction or political repression it often brings. For those who experienced Soviet shortages, Venezuelan collapse, or East Germany’s surveillance, the word socialism doesn’t suggest fairness or opportunity—it suggests fear, failure, and control. There’s a reason so many fled those systems to come to freer countries. What sounds utopian in theory has too often turned dystopian in practice.

But blaming capitalism misses the mark. The real culprit is cronyism, the unholy alliance between big government and big business that twists markets, blocks competition, and rewards political connections over genuine innovation.

The Myth of Market Failure

Capitalism, in its true form, is based on voluntary exchange. It rewards businesses that meet people’s needs and wants, with consumers deciding what succeeds and what fails. Competition drives improvement, innovation, and lower prices. No one is forced to buy or sell anything; choice reigns.

Cronyism is a different beast altogether. In a crony system, businesses succeed not by serving customers but by lobbying politicians. Profits come through subsidies, bailouts, and regulations designed to crush competition.

The 2008 financial crisis, often cited as proof of capitalism’s failures, actually showcased what happens when markets are rigged. Reckless banks, instead of collapsing as they deserved, were bailed out with taxpayer money. Ordinary people lost jobs and homes, while the politically connected survived and thrived.

This wasn’t free enterprise. It was cronyism.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a grim sequel. Small businesses were forced to shut their doors under government mandates. Meanwhile, corporate giants like Amazon, able to operate under looser restrictions or pivot online, soared to record profits. Policies, written in the name of public health, often privileged the biggest players while leaving Main Street devastated.

Cronyism on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Cronyism is not limited to one country or one political party. Across the United States and Europe, the symptoms are the same.

In the U.S., Canada, and the UK, the dream of homeownership slips further away for young people. Sky-high housing prices are blamed on “market failure,” but the real cause lies in layers of government-imposed barriers: restrictive zoning laws, burdensome permitting requirements, and endless bureaucratic delays. Big developers who can afford to navigate or influence the system survive. Everyone else gets locked out.

In Europe, the pattern repeats. France’s labor laws, designed to protect workers, instead stifle opportunity. Hiring becomes risky and expensive, especially for young people. Large corporations, with the resources to manage compliance costs, consolidate their dominance. Small firms and startups never get off the ground.

There’s also a persistent myth that big business fears government intervention. In reality, the largest corporations often embrace it, because it keeps them on top. Tech giants like Facebook and Google now lobby for more regulation, knowing that complex new rules will strangle smaller competitors who can’t afford fleets of compliance officers. Green energy subsidies, meant to combat climate change, often end up showering billions on well-connected firms while locking out emerging innovators.

Cronyism doesn’t reward the best ideas. It rewards the best lobbyists.

Why Gen Z’s Frustration Is Justified

Gen Z values fairness, creativity, and freedom. The very principles cronyism undermines. When political influence matters more than merit, and when success depends on government favoritism instead of consumer satisfaction, opportunity shrinks and innovation slows. But they are wrong when they think “socialism” would be a better option, not least because of the rampant cronyism that has existed in every socialist state.

The temptation to seek salvation through government power is not new. The Soviet Union began with a promise of equality and delivered oppression and scarcity (except for the party elites). Venezuela promised 21st-century socialism and delivered hunger, economic collapse, and political repression. Meanwhile, countries that embraced market freedom—even imperfectly—created unparalleled prosperity. Free markets have lifted billions out of poverty, and unleashed innovation that reshaped the modern world.

Markets aren’t flawless. But they leave the door open for anyone to succeed, not just those born into privilege or connected to power.

Aim Your Anger at the Right Target

Gen Z’s frustration is real, and it deserves an outlet. But the answer is not to tear down capitalism; it’s to tear down cronyism. A freer, fairer future depends on separating business from political power, not binding them closer together. It means ending corporate welfare, simplifying the rules of the game, and making sure that competition, not connections, decides who wins.

The fight for fairness is worth waging. But it must be aimed in the right direction. If we rage against cronyism, not capitalism, we can build a future where innovation thrives, opportunity is real, and every member of Generation Z has a genuine chance to rise.

From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Gerry Bowler via The Epoch Times,

A single line in a royal financial account leads us into the fascinating history of Scotch whisky. On June 1, 1495, a secretary penned the following: “To Friar John Cor, by order of the King, to make aqua vitae, VIII bolls of malt.” This is the earliest mention we have of the manufacture of distilled spirits in Scotland—eight barrels of malt to make aqua vitae, “the water of life” (“usquebaugh” in Gaelic.)

The use of intoxicating beverages is as old as civilization itself; humans have been drinking beer and wine for thousands of years. These drinks were safer than local water supplies and provided valuable nutrients to men, women, and children on a daily basis. The average Englishman of the Middle Ages drank anywhere from 250 to 400 gallons of beer a year.

However, taking advantage of the powers of distillation to increase alcohol content and purify the liquor is much more recent. It seems to have developed, perhaps surprisingly, in medieval monasteries where monks who were the chemists and physicians of the day used their knowledge of herbs, fermentation, and alchemy to make useful medicines. Friar John Cor seems to have belonged to the Dominican Order. By the 15th century, these monks had mastered a complicated process of several steps to produce Scotch whisky.

First, barley—a hardy grain able to be grown in northern climates—is malted, that is steeped in water, allowed to germinate. and then dried. The grain is mashed in water, and yeast is added which ferments the sugars into ethanol.

Then, the liquid is poured into a still where it is heated. The alcohol evaporates before the water, and this vapour rises and condenses again into a liquid. It undergoes a second distillation which separates the “heart” (clean, desirable alcohol) from less desirable elements. Each distillation increases the percentage of alcohol to a very high level. The liquid is now diluted, poured into oak casks, and allowed to age for a number of years, taking on the flavour of the wood, changing colour, and becoming a more complex beverage.

The Protestant Reformation in Scotland and England destroyed the monastic system, leaving alcohol innovation and production in the hands of private individuals. Hundreds of stills were set up, serving a growing public taste for Scotch. But a complication arose when first the Scottish and then (after the Union of 1707 joined the Scots and English) the British government sought to tax the production of whisky. This created a steady demand for the product of illegal, unlicensed (and thus cheaper) distilleries that operated relatively free from official harassment, hidden in glens and sheltered by fog, remoteness, and tolerant locals in the Highlands.

Triple cask single malt Scotch whisky aged for 16 years from the Balvenie distillery in Dufftown, Scotland. Adilson Sochodolak/Shutterstock

The legal trade emerged triumphant, however, in the 19th century after the tragic Highland Clearances when lairds started evicting their tenants to make way for more profitable sheep farming. Coupled with easier government regulation of the trade, new techniques that produced a smoother whisky, and disastrous vine diseases on the Continent that cut back on the availability of wines, a class of prosperous Scottish distilleries emerged, many of which still exist today. By the late 1800s, whisky was rivalling brandy as the preferred drink of the wealthier classes around the globe.

In the 21st century, Scotch whisky is a carefully defined product that ensures high standards and distinguishes it from imitations and foreign rivals. Methods of production, ingredients, alcohol content (at least 80 proof), and aging (at least three years) are strictly controlled, and wise consumers can tell by the labelling just what they are buying.

Single malt Scotch is made from 100 percent malted barley in old-fashioned pot stills at a single distillery. This is the most expensive and prestigious variety, some costing many thousands of dollars a bottle. Single grain Scotch is made at one distillery but contains barley and other grains. Blended Scotch is a mixture of malts and other grains made from the product of different distilleries. This is the sort that is the most commonly encountered. Blended malt Scotch consists of malts from different distilleries (appealing to those who want the malty experience but don’t want to pay high-end prices), while blended grain Scotch is a mixture of grains from different distilleries.

Whisky connoisseurs have their own terminology and can rival wine snobs in their alleged ability to distinguish regional variations and describe tastes. Be prepared to hear talk of “smoky,” “peaty,” briny,” or “complex,” and listen to arguments over the virtues of Scotch from Islay, the Islands, or the Highlands.

Slàinte Mhath!

When the UEFA Champions League Final between Inter Milan and Paris Saint-Germain kicks off at the Allianz Arena in Munich today, it will be the first final without a club from either England, Spain or Germany since Mourinho's FC Porto beat AS Monaco in 2004.

It will also be a game of European football heritage versus a new footballing power, as Inter with its rich legacy will play a PSG that has been transformed from a mid-table club to a serial league winner and global brand since the takeover by Qatar Sports Investments in 2011. Ironically, the current PSG squad, which is arguably the least star-studded in years after the likes of Neymar, Messi and Mbappé all left, is given the best chance of finally winning the Champions League, a title the club has been chasing for more than a decade now.

As the following chart shows, Inter won the Champions League (or the European Cup as it was previously called) three times already, most recently in 2010. Real Madrid is in a league of its own in terms of European triumphs, however. The outfit from the Spanish capital won 15 Champions League titles, leading AC Milan (7), Liverpool and Bayern (6) by a wide margin.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Additionally, football fans from all across the globe will be watching.

After all, it is the biggest club competition in the world, where fans get to watch star-studded teams compete for European glory and a place in the game's history books.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports, for UEFA, Europe’s football governing body, the competition’s global appeal is paying off handsomely. Over the past two decades, the media and commercial rights for the Champions League have more than quintupled in value. In the 2023/24 season, UEFA made €3.2 billion from Champions League rights, up from just €569 million in the 2003/04 season.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Looking at UEFA's lower-tier club competitions, the Europa League and the Conference League, highlights how far ahead the Champions League is in terms of its status and commercial appeal. Last season, UEFA's combined revenue from Europa League and Conference League media and commercial rights amounted to €478 million, which is just 15 percent of what the Champions League brought in.