Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Hollywood is dying a “very fast death,” the US president has claimed  

US President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that he would impose a 100% tariff on foreign-produced films, marking the first time his restrictive trade policies have been extended to the entertainment industry.

In his post on the Truth Social platform, Trump claimed the American film industry was dying a “very fast death” due to incentives offered by foreign countries to lure US filmmakers.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs, culminating in his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs introduced on April 2. They target more than 90 US trade partners. Most were paused for 90 days, though a baseline 10% remains in effect. China was excluded from the pause and was hit with a tax of 145% on all imports. Beijing retaliated with 125% tariffs and new export controls on US goods.

Trump said he had directed agencies, including the Commerce Department, to begin “immediately” imposing a 100% tariff on all foreign-produced films entering the US.

“We’re on it,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick responded on X. It remains unclear, however, whether the measure would target foreign studios, US companies filming abroad, or both.

The US president also framed foreign film productions as a national security threat, asserting that other countries were using cinema as a vehicle for “messaging and propaganda.”

 “WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” he declared.

Trump’s post came after weekend meetings at his Mar-a-Lago Club with actor Jon Voight and his manager, Steven Paul, Bloomberg said citing people familiar with the matter. They reportedly presented the president with their plans for more federal tax incentives for US film and TV production.

In January, Trump appointed Voight, along with actors Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone, as special ambassadors to Hollywood to help promote US job growth in the entertainment sector.

Hollywood production has been increasingly shifting overseas, as countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand expand tax incentives to attract film and TV projects.

Film and television production in Los Angeles has declined by nearly 40% over the past decade, according to FilmLA, the region’s film office.

The trend has contributed to a decline in US-based shoots, with studios seeking lower costs and bigger rebates abroad. According to Ampere Analysis, global content spending is expected to hit $248 billion in 2025, driven largely by streaming platforms – further fueling the push for more affordable production hubs.

Trump’s move follows China’s decision last month to “moderately reduce” the number of Hollywood films permitted in the country, a retaliatory step against his aggressive tariff policies.

William Reinsch, a former senior Commerce official and CSIS fellow, warned that retaliation against Trump’s film measures could be devastating.

“We have a lot more to lose than to gain,” he told Reuters, adding that justifying tariffs on national security or emergency grounds would be difficult.

Each day between now and the May 7 conclave to elect a successor to Pope Francis, John Allen is offering a profile of a different papabile, the Italian term for a man who could be pope. There’s no scientific way to identity these contenders; it’s mostly a matter of weighing reputations, positions held and influence wielded over the years. There’s also certainly no guarantee one of these candidates will emerge wearing white; as an old bit of Roman wisdom has it, “He who enters a conclave as a pope exits as a cardinal.” These are, however, the leading names drawing buzz in Rome right now, at least ensuring they will get a look. Knowing who these men are also suggests issues and qualities other cardinals see as desirable heading into the election.

ROME – In a conclave in which many cardinals don’t know one another, there’s probably a premium on familiarity – the better known and more established a given figure is, the greater the odds that others might see him as a viable candidate – if for no other reason, then simply on the basis of a “bird in the hand” sort of logic.

By that standard, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has to be considered a potential contender, if only by virtue of having been around. He’s been a cardinal for 15 years, a Vatican official before that, and got a look as a papal candidate 12 years ago during the run-up to the conclave that elected Francis.

Having kicked the ties on Ranjith once, it’s possible his fellow cardinals might be motivated to do so again.

With the formal name of Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the future Prince of the Church was born in the small Sri Lankan town of Polgahawela in 1947 as the eldest of what would eventually be fourteen children. In a 2006 interview, he said his vocation was stirred by the example of a French missionary from the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who served in his parish.

After earning his undergraduate degree in theology from the Urbanian, Ranjith earned his licentiate at the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1978, with a thesis centered on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (While there, he studied under two future Jesuit cardinals – Carlo Maria Martini and Albert Vanhoye.) Ranjith also did postdoctoral work at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Marked out from the first as a rising star, in 1991 Ranjith became an auxiliary bishop of Colombo at the tender age of 43. In 1994, as a young bishop, Ranjith led a commission that denounced the theological work of Sri Lankan theologian Tissa Balasuriya, charging that he had questioned original sin and the divinity of Christ, as well as supporting women’s ordination. The resulting furor first brought Ranjith into contact with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who backed his position.

Ranjith coordinated John Paul II’s January 1995 visit to Sri Lanka, and one can infer that he acquitted himself well from the fact that he was named the first bishop of Ratnapura nine months later.

Among other things, Ranjith has promoted inter-faith dialogue. Buddhism is Sri Lanka’s dominant religion, but the country also has significant pockets of Hindus and Muslims, while Christians make up roughly seven percent of the population of 20 million.

In 2001, Ranjith was brought to Rome to work at Propaganda Fidei and was simultaneously named president of the Pontifical Mission Societies, giving him a wide network of contacts across the developing world.

Ranjith was dispatched in 2004 as the papal ambassador to Indonesia and East Timor, becoming the first Sri Lankan to serve as a nuncio. It was an unusual move, since Ranjith was not a graduate of Rome’s Accademia Ecclesiastica and did not come out of the Vatican diplomatic corps. At the time, there were whispers that perhaps Ranjith had been “exiled” because he was seen as slightly too conservative for some prelates, either in the developing world or his superiors at Propaganda Fidei.

That cloud seemed to lift nine months later, when the new pope, Benedict XVI, called Ranjith back to Rome to serve as the number two official at the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Over the next four years, Ranjith became something of a bête noire for liturgical progressives. He criticized communion in the hand, saying it was not envisioned by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and became widespread only after its “illegitimate introduction” in some countries. When Benedict authorized wider celebration of the old Latin Mass in 2007, Ranjith openly blasted bishops who didn’t move quickly to implement it, accusing them of “disobedience … and even rebellion against the pope”.

During his various stints in Rome, Ranjith was dubbed il piccolo Ratzinger, or “the little Ratzinger”, both because of his short physical stature and also his close affinity for the positions of Ratzinger both before and after his election to the papacy.

Four years later he was moved out of Rome again, this time to become the Archbishop of Colombo. Some read this as a second exile on the basis that he was too close to the traditionalist wing of the Church. Others, however, argued that it was a genuine promotion, intended to give Ranjith pastoral seasoning as the head of the diocese and to set him up as Benedict’s point man across Asia.

He certainly didn’t waste time. Four months after arriving, Ranjith issued new liturgical rules for Colombo requiring that communion be received on the tongue and in a kneeling position, forbidding laity from preaching, and barring priests from bringing customs from other religions into Catholic worship.

In the years since, Ranjith has profiled as a staunch conservative on doctrinal matters and sexual morality, while also embracing the peace-and-justice elements of Catholic social teaching.

“Love for the liturgy and love for the poor, two true and proper treasures of the Church, one might say, have been the compass of my life,” he said. Ranjith once added that although he’s not an “adherent”, he shares some of the values of the “no-global” movement protesting neo-liberal models of economic globalisation. In 2015 he hosted Pope Francis on a successful trip to Sri Lanka, which came against the backdrop of a deep economic crisis and political instability.

Ranjith has been a strong voice for the victims of violence and persecution, including the survivors and families of the roughly 300 people who lost their lives in a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday in 2019. He’s never been shy about wading into national politics; amid a deep financial and institutional crisis in 2022, he demanded that then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resign and new elections be called, which is precisely what happened.

The case for Ranjith as pope?

Most basically, he incarnates the ethos of Catholicism across much of the developing world: Strongly “progressive” on social justice issues such as poverty, climate change and migration, but staunchly “conservative” on doctrinal questions and matters of sexual morality. In that sense, he would be seen as representative of the “two-thirds” world which, these days, actually represents almost three-quarters of the global Catholic population of 1.3 billion.

Ranjith has extensive Vatican experience, so he wouldn’t require the same on-the-job training as a complete outsider. Given that everyone believes the next pope has to be a strong governor, capable, among other things, of addressing the Vatican’s dire financial situation, that’s a real asset.

In terms of the conventional handicapping categories, he passes with flying colors. For one thing, he’s said to be fluent in ten languages, obviously giving him the linguistic range to lead a global institution. At 77, he’s also right in the wheelhouse of the average age of the last two popes, who were 78 and 76 respectively at the time they were elected.

The case against?

Most basically, his stances might be seen as too far to the right for the comfort level of some electors. In addition, the likelihood that he might revive celebration of the older Latin Mass probably would be seen as a direct repudiation of Pope Francis’s legacy, which is an impression some cardinals may not wish to foster.

Some might also worry that Ranjith was twice sent packing from the Vatican. Whatever the actual motives, that history may suggest to some cardinals that he has a track record of ruffling feathers at a time when many are looking for a pope who can bring together diverse camps and mediate some of the Church’s internal tensions.

Finally, there may be a root sense in some quarters that Ranjith’s time has passed, that he had his shot twelve years ago and to consider him again now would represent a step back rather than forward. Whatever one makes of that assessment, it’s worth recalling that much the same thing could have been said for Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina in 2013, and we all know how that turned out.

Photo: Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, the head of Sri Lanka’s Catholic Church, speaks to media personnel in Colombo on April 3, 2025, announcing plans to mark the 6th anniversary of the 2019 Easter Sunday bomb attacks. (Photo by Ishara S. KODIKARA / AFP)

The post ‘Papabile’ of the Day: Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, ‘the little Ratzinger’ from Sri Lanka first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post ‘Papabile’ of the Day: Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, ‘the little Ratzinger’ from Sri Lanka appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The US president has said top Western officials are urging him to maintain communication with the Kremlin

US President Donald Trump has claimed that EU leaders are imploring him to engage diplomatically with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as the Kremlin allegedly refuses to respond to their calls.

The Russian government had been open to engaging with EU leaders, notably German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who reached out to Putin last November. Kiev criticized Berlin for the move, which it labeled a form of appeasement towards Russia.

Trump emphasized his role as a mediator during an interview with NBC News on Sunday, stating, “Do you know that the European Union leaders have asked me to call Putin so many times? Because he doesn’t return their phone calls.”

The Trump administration is acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine in an effort to broker an end to the ongoing conflict. Most European NATO members have pledged continued military support to Kiev. Some have discussed potential troop deployments to the region, rejected outright by Moscow.

He remarked that his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had not reached out to Putin at all, seemingly referencing the period following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Trump said his administration is “closer with one party, and maybe not as close with the other,” regarding a peace agreement, without specifying which is which.

Moscow has consistently expressed a desire to resolve its differences with the West through diplomatic means, although its proposals concerning NATO expansion in Europe were dismissed in 2021. 

Russia aims for an indivisible security framework in Europe, where the safety of one nation cannot come at the expense of another, Putin stated during a government meeting in February.

“We understand that not everyone welcomes the revival of Russian-American contacts. Some Western elites are intent on perpetuating global instability, and those forces will attempt to undermine or sabotage our dialogue,” he added.

In March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized French President Emmanuel Macron for publicly stating his willingness to talk directly with Putin but never acting on it.

"Resistance is futile" was a sentence that struck fear in the hearts of Trekkie fans during "Star Trek: The Next Generation," specifically in both of the "Best Of Worlds" and "First Contact" episodes. In those episodes, the "Starship Enterprise" crew encountered a species called the "Borg." The Borg's primary purpose was to achieve "perfection" by assimilating other beings and technologies into their "hive mind," known as the "Collective." They viewed assimilation as a means to expand their collective knowledge, power, and ultimately, their vision of a perfect and harmonious existence. The reason "resistance was futile" was that the centralized control, driven by the Borg Queen, allowed for swift and coordinated actions across vast distances. At the same time, the assimilation process threatened to erase individuality and homogenize the galaxy. 

I could go on, but you are asking yourself two questions. First, is Lance a total sci-fi geek? Second, what does this have to do with the markets and investing? The answer to the first question is "yes," as I grew up with William Shatner as James T. Kirk in the original Gene Roddenberry "Star Trek."

However, let's dig deeper into the second question.

Over the past two weeks, the market has had a furious nine-day rally, the longest winning streak in 21 years. However, there are two takeaways from such a historic advance. First, it is "bullish" as investors return to the market. However, investors should also recognize that if the rally is the longest in 21 years, then previous such rallies failed. As shown in the chart below, there have been longer rallies, with 14 trading days being the peak. But in every case, it is worth remembering the following:

"'Record levels' of anything are records for a reason. It is where the point was reached where previous limits existed. Therefore, when a 'record level' is reached, it is NOT THE BEGINNING, but rather an indication of the MATURITY of a cycle.”

That reality exists for any data set, at either extreme. Let's look at two examples.

The Bearish Example

On April 7th, the day the market bottomed, I wrote an article entitled "Hope In The Fear," in which we discussed the extremes of "bearish sentiment" and technically oversold conditions. To wit:

"There are times when the probabilities of something happening outweigh the possibilities. Following last week’s market crash, the “probability” of at least a near-term rally outweighs the possibility of a further decline. Does that mean it is guaranteed to happen? No. But, several indicators have historically tilted the odds in the investor’s favor."

The reason was the extreme technical oversold conditions that existed.

"Whether or not the current market crash is the beginning of a larger corrective cycle, such low readings have, without fail, marked the near-term low of a market correction. While the market has previously continued its corrective process after such low readings, such did not occur without a meaningful reversal rally first."

When analyzing the market from a technical perspective, technicians watch two primary levels: support and resistance. As always, the demand between buyers and sellers determines stock prices. When the supply of stock for sale overwhelms the demand from buyers, "resistance" occurs, which impedes prices from moving higher. The same happens during declining markets, where resistance (support) to lower prices forms as the demand from buyers overwhelms the supply of stock for sale.

In that April 7th article, we stated that the markets were three standard deviations below long-term moving averages and challenging rising trend lines. In other words, those were previous levels where "resistance was futile," such oversold conditions typically precede short-term rallies to allow investors to reduce exposure to equities. We also noted that the target for a tradable rally was between 5500 and 5700. (The market closed at 5686 on Friday.)

Such is why we focus heavily on investor sentiment and positioning. When investors are extremely bearish and are "panic liquidating" equity exposure during a market decline, that is often a contrarian indicator that resistance to a further decline is forming. When sellers become exhausted, it only takes a few buyers to push higher prices. Of course, when resistance to lower prices forms, the media headlines are often the most negative, and investors' "loss aversion" behavior is the most extreme.

As we concluded in that article:

"It won’t take much for the market to find a reason to rally. That could happen as soon as next week. If the market rallies, we suggest reverting to the basic principles to navigate what we suspect will be more volatile this year. However, at some point, just as we saw in 2022, the market will bottom. Like then, you won’t want to believe the market is bottoming; your fear of buying will be overwhelming, but that will be the point you must step in.

Buying near market lows is incredibly difficult. While we likely aren’t there yet, we will be there sooner than you imagine. As such, when you want to 'sell everything,' ask yourself if this is the point where you should 'buy' instead."

But what about the bull case?

Resistance For The Bulls

As with the bears, "resistance is futile" for the bulls just as much. As noted above, the market has had the longest "positive day" stretch in 21 years. While the media is becoming more convinced that the "bulls are back in town," which is probably true, it should also be a warning that "resistance" to higher prices is forming since such previous winning streaks have failed.

As noted above, the relentless market rally has pulled many investors back into the market over the last few weeks. Sentiment has quickly changed from extremely bearish to bullish, and professional investors have rapidly ramped up exposures. While sentiment and positioning are not yet back to extremes, the market has technically reversed much of its previous oversold and technically deviated conditions.

Most notably, the market is now approaching the 200-DMA, which is a level at which many buyers were stepping in before the "Liberation Day" market plunge. Many buyers are close to getting back to even and will likely be inclined to sell as they approach breakeven. Furthermore, the 100-DMA, which is close to crossing the 200-DMA, provides further resistance. As noted in "Death Cross," these moving average crossovers impede further price advances until they reverse.

The 100 and 200-DMA moving averages have historically defined market trends. For example, the 100-DMA (blue line) supported market pullbacks during 2021 and since the October 2022 lows. Conversely, those moving averages defined the peaks of reflexive rallies during the 2022 correction. With the markets again trading below those averages, seeing sellers emerge as markets approach those resistance levels would be unsurprising.

Is the current correction over, and is the bull market resuming? Maybe. We certainly saw such a situation in the summer of 2023, when the markets declined 10%, a "death cross" occurred, and markets immediately bottomed and surged to new highs. Then, like today, there was a surge in corporate buybacks and a quick reversal of very bearish sentiment. However, as shown in the chart above, even if we are experiencing a 2023-type scenario, there will be short-term corrections and pullbacks, providing investors an entry point to increase equity exposure as needed.

So, how do we know if the current market is like 2022 or 2023? Should investors be selling rallies or buying dips?

Beating The Borg

In Star Trek, the crew of the Enterprise eventually defeats the Borg through a combination of strategic attacks and exploiting weaknesses in their collective structure. The crew of the USS Enterprise-D, led by Captain Picard, used their access to the Borg collective, through Picard's assimilation, to their advantage and were able to disable and destroy the Borg cube by exploiting its regeneration subroutines. Unfortunately, defeating the "collective" of our emotional biases when investing isn't much easier, but it is possible.

Interestingly, when I write posts like these, someone often comments, "Why won't you just tell us whether the market is going up or down?" It's a fair statement, but unfortunately, I am not prescient, nor is anyone else, and navigating markets does not work like that.

If I want to be bearish, it is easy to state the market is at resistance and about to crash, so you better "get out now." Or, if I wanted to be bullish, I could point to October 2022 and make the case why markets are about to surge higher. Either prediction has a decent chance of being wrong, leaving investors on the wrong side of the trade. As such, this is why we don't predict, but instead navigate the current market for the possibilities versus the probabilities.

Historically speaking, when markets break longer-term moving averages, the first attempt at reversal often fails. Notice that I said "often" and not "always." That is because sometimes markets do the unexpected, and, as investors, we must be able to recognize the change and respond accordingly. Such is why we never recommend entirely getting out of markets.

In a recent #BullBearReport entitled Spock & The Logic-Based Approach To Investing, we discussed that as investors, we must weigh possibilities and probabilities and manage our risk accordingly. To wit:

"Investing means cutting through noise, avoiding speculation, and relying on data. For example, the media is jammed with emotionally charged headlines about tariff-induced trade wars, recessions, and de-dollarization. In reality, those events rarely occur. The chart below shows a normally distributed bell curve of potential events and outcomes. In simple terms, 68.26% of the time, typical outcomes occur. Economically speaking, such would be a normal recession or the avoidance of a recession. 95.44% of the time, we are most likely dealing with a range of outcomes between a reasonably deep recession and standard economic growth rates. However, there is a 2.14% chance that we could see another economic crisis like the 2008 Financial Crisis. But what about “economic armageddon?” That event where nothing matters but 'gold, beanie weenies, and bunker.' That is a 0.14% possibility."

So, Where Are We Now

If you want my best guess, here it is:

• We've likely seen the market lows for this year.
• We've likely seen the highs as well.

Navigating a market trapped between support and resistance becomes emotionally challenging. Investors face sharp rallies into resistance — and retracements back to support — wearing down sentiment until mistakes happen.

Therefore, this is how we are positioned in this current and uncertain market environment.

• Primarily long equities, as the market structure remains bullish.
• Increased cash levels to manage policy and growth uncertainty.
• Short S&P 500 index to hedge downside risk.

We also recommend a healthy portfolio and risk management regimen.

1. Tighten up stop-loss levels to current support levels for each position.
2. Hedge portfolios against more significant market declines.
3. Take profits in positions that have been big winners.
4. Sell laggards and losers.
5. Raise cash and rebalance portfolios to target weightings.

Here’s the hard truth: you can’t measure risk in advance.

Markets are unpredictable, and while we can guess what might happen, the future is uncertain. When we think about risk, most of us focus on the risk of losing money. However, there are other risks we should be aware of, like missing out on gains by playing it too safe or being forced to sell investments during a market crash. Both can be just as damaging to our portfolios in the long run. We don't have any foresight into what the market will do next week or month.

All we can do is remain focused on our portfolio, manage the risk of "being wrong," and realize that "resistance is futile" when investing in the market. As Howard Marks once penned:

"Too little skepticism and too much eagerness in an up-market – just like too much resistance and pessimism in a down-market – can be very bad for investment results."

Just something to think about.

Now, "Make it so."

The post “Resistance Is Futile” – For Both Bulls And Bears appeared first on RIA.

The Ukrainian leader realizes Washington still needs him and he is becoming more authoritarian, Aleksandr Dubinsky has said

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is testing America’s tolerance for abuses of power by sanctioning his critics, jailed Ukrainian MP Aleksandr Dubinsky has said.

Last week, Zelensky announced measures targeting his former top adviser Aleksey Arestovich, historian Konstantin Bondarenko, who published a biography of the Ukrainian leader, titled “The Joker,” and several other journalists and political analysts. Penalties have included asset freezes, restrictions on trade and financial transactions, travel bans and the revocation of state awards.

“By imposing sanctions against media people and political scientists, Zelensky is also testing the US tolerance for his dictatorship,” Dubinsky, who was detained by Kiev authorities in November 2023 on charges including high treason, wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday.

The fact that the restrictions were announced a day after the signing of the minerals deal between the US and Ukraine was no coincidence, he suggested.

Zelensky is trying to find out “if there will be any reaction” to such a move from Washington when “the agreement is signed, but not yet ratified” by Ukraine’s parliament, the ousted legislator wrote.

The deal, which was agreed upon on Wednesday after months of difficult negotiations, established a joint investment fund and gave the US preferential access to Ukraine’s natural resources.

The American security guarantees which Zelensky’s government had been demanding were not part of the agreement, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal.

“Furthermore, Zelensky is also needed to sign the peace treaty [with Russia]. This gives him the opportunity to test the limits of what is allowed. Europe is satisfied with him, and the US seems to be satisfied with him now too,” Dubinsky stressed.

The Ukrainian leader sees the situation as an opportunity to get rid of his political opponents, he added.

Legislators from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, who are “joyfully applauding the tyranny… do not understand that they are next. A dictator does not need fellow travelers, he only needs a show of force,” the MP wrote.

READ MORE: Ukraine exhibiting ‘classic terrorist behavior’ – Russian Foreign Ministry

Zelensky remains in power in Ukraine despite his presidential term officially expiring last May. He canceled the election citing the martial law he had imposed due to the conflict with Russia. In mid-April, the Ukrainian leader prolonged the emergency measures another three months.

The president envisions an expanded facility to house the “dregs of society”

US President Donald Trump has said he plans to revive Alcatraz Island’s historic role as a maximum-security federal penitentiary.

The US requires a place for the “dregs of society,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday, as his deportation initiatives continue to face opposition in the courts.

Originally constructed as a military fortress off the coast of San Francisco, Alcatraz served as a correctional facility for nearly 30 years before its closure over six decades ago, subsequently transforming into a popular tourist destination.

Trump said he had instructed the Department of Justice “to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ, to house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders.”

“We will no longer be held hostage to criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally,” Trump proclaimed, describing the impending conversion as a “symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE.”

Having campaigned for the presidency with a promise to deport illegal migrants, Trump has encountered resistance from the courts, which interpret his administration’s procedures as violations of due process rights.

Positioned in a remote location around 2km off the Californian coast, Alcatraz – often referred to as “the Rock” – is notorious for its supposed inescapability. Of 36 inmates who attempted to flee, none were confirmed to have succeeded, though five remain listed as “missing and presumed drowned.”

The structure atop the island was initially erected in the 1850s as a military citadel to safeguard San Francisco Bay. The Department of Justice assumed control in 1933, utilizing it as a prison until 1963. The culturally significant landmark, regarded as a symbol of governmental pushback against rampant crime in the early 20th century, was eventually deemed too expensive to maintain compared to similar facilities.

Today, Alcatraz stands as a designated National Historic Landmark, attracting over a million visitors annually, with the National Park Service overseeing its management. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose district includes the island, dismissed Trump’s announcement as “not a serious one.”

Later in the day, the president told journalists that reopening the prison was “just an idea I’ve had.”

But the Blues collapse is connected to the pope thing. I offer up my extreme bitterness in exchange for the conclave.

Silly? Maybe. I don’t care.

Bitter

Francesca Albanese has insisted the bloc official as well top diplomat Kaja Kallas “will have to be judged“

The EU leadership should be held accountable for supporting Israel’s “war crimes” in Gaza, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese has said.

In an interview with The Intercept published on Saturday, Albanese singled out European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas.

“The fact that the two highest figures of the EU continue business-as-usual engagements with Israel is beyond deplorable,” she said.

“I’m not someone who says, ‘History will judge them’ – they will have to be judged before then. And they will have to understand that immunity cannot equate with impunity,” the UN expert added.

Albanese said she has been working on a report exposing the role of institutions and organizations – including banks, pension funds, tech companies, and universities – in crimes against the Palestinian population of Gaza.

“All those implicated and involved in the unlawful occupation, in providing it with support, are aiding and abetting violations of international law and human rights violations, and a number of these amount to crimes,” Albanese said. “There can be individual responsibility and individual liability for those who have been aiding and abetting or enabling such crimes.”

Albanese has repeatedly urged von der Leyen to use her powers as head of the EU executive to stop the “genocide” in Gaza. She also criticized Kallas for not pressuring Israel to end its military operation during her visit to Tel Aviv in March, when the diplomat said “both sides lose” in the conflict.

“A shocking low for the EU: one of its top leaders stands with Israel’s foreign minister, representing a state responsible for killing 50,000 people (in 16 months), 70% women and children, with Western-made weapons,” Albanese wrote on X at the time.

The UN official claimed she and her family have faced death threats since she released a report in March 2024, insisting that Israel’s actions should be classified as genocide.

European Commission spokeswoman Gioia Franchellucci told The Intercept that Brussels was committed to international law, and that the bloc’s relationship with Israel allows officials to express their “positions and concerns.”

“The association agreement with Israel is the legal basis of our ongoing dialogue with the Israeli authorities, and it provides mechanisms to discuss issues and advance our points of view,” the spokeswoman said.

West Jerusalem launched its operation in Gaza following a surprise attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, during which militants killed around 1,200 Israelis and took around 250 hostages. Over 52,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict broke out, according to the enclave’s health authorities.

Recent polarized battles over education draw attention to an underlying problem: the persistent orientation of teacher preparation programs toward relativism and away from truth. Teacher education should affirm objective reality and reject critical and relativist frameworks, including the Marxist-materialist worldviews that have been so rampant in recent decades. Personalist philosophy offers a compelling alternative to critical and subjectivist philosophies of education through its consistent articulation of the dignity and value of the human person.

Traditional preparation for teachers, who need state certification or licensure in most situations, generally involves university coursework and assessments like licensure examinations. This coursework should incorporate current theories of human development, family engagement, instruction, and pedagogy. Often, the coursework in such programs reproduces less rigorous versions of critical theory without encouraging or requiring future teachers to grapple with the philosophical implications of that theory. Treatment in education programs may lack the theoretical orientation of a true critical approach, replacing primary readings from Foucault and Fanon with classroom-based examples. But teacher candidates are still left to piece together on their own the relationship between critical approaches and generally accepted principles of logic and reason.

For example, putting Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a staple in teacher preparation programs, into practice does not simply mean that lessons must be relevant and fun. (That position, incidentally, is not supported by evidence.) Rather, truly operationalizing Pedagogy of the Oppressed would involve pushing students to question the foundations of the current social order, interrogate authority, and embrace liberation even when it leads to revolution. It would demand that teachers prioritize alternative ways of knowing over principles of reason or evidence. Does the average teacher candidate understand the implication of those ideas when Freirian pedagogy is referenced? To understand the full implications and context of this thought might require a semester in an advanced political science seminar or, at minimum, acknowledgment that critical consciousness cannot be neatly put on a bulletin board.

Further, such preparation encourages teacher candidates to prioritize perceptions and feelings over reality. For example, one recent monograph opposing evidence-based reading instruction absurdly  references the need for a “full and complementary satchel of . . . epistemologies.” Existing subjective paradigms emphasize the impossibility of consistent beliefs or truths. Such approaches reject the idea of evidence on which our scientific system is based, promoting “spiritual, social, and story-centered forms of knowledge” and “what Sandra Harding has called a strong objectivity that is reached with an eschewing of objectivity . . . and rather, a deep subjectivity.” 

If we pull any thread of this subjectivist tapestry, it becomes easy to unravel the idea of reality itself. If all knowledge is socially constructed, then on what basis or by what authority does a teacher claim to provide any direction? What is the consistent principle we can use to mark any answer wrong if the student’s interpretation already aligns with his or her “lived experience”? It is, of course, easy to overgeneralize; helping students understand the real world often involves pushing them to reflect on personal experience. But taken to extremes, this thinking makes it impossible to prioritize truth and objectivity over feelings and experience. We see real-life downsides of this approach in mathematics curricula that prioritize “equity” and making students “feel heard” as well as in the controversy over balanced literacy, which led to generations of children who thought they could read because they “felt like” readers. 

Critical theory–based approaches to teacher preparation are also rooted in materialist thinking, positioning students as cogs in a vast system of oppressive machinery that can be disrupted only through activism and political awakening. In this telling, the only way out is further adoption of a critical consciousness lens in order to organize and advocate social change to promote a specific ideological agenda. Social justice–oriented approaches feel helpful to educators insofar as they provide a vocabulary to discuss pressing problems such as poverty and discrimination. The worst excesses of industrialization and modernity—abuse of workers, world wars, and genocides—highlight shortcomings of our systems. But conceptualizing problems as political issues, rather than educational ones, leads us to search for political solutions in lieu of educational ones. Eliminating oppression necessarily requires “confronting the ideological frameworks, historical legacies, and institutional . . . practices” contributing to inequality.

According to one researcher, in social justice–oriented teacher preparation, teacher educators (that is, those who educate future teachers) 

actively interact with the local sociopolitical context, . . . [disrupt] power relations in the classroom, . . . [and] challenge Eurocentric epistemologies by valuing lived experience, bodies, and practitioner knowledge in constructing knowledge. 

Teacher educators prioritize this perspective, seeking a “shared, explicit, and consistent focus on teaching for social justice.” And teachers are further encouraged to move away from the objectivity required in scientific paradigms; according to one study, “[t]o teach for social justice involves shifting out of neutral, both in terms of a teacher’s orientation to social inequalities and of pedagogy.” There is little room in such framing for educators to seek truth through apolitical, ideologically neutral examination of achievement gaps and adoption of evidence-based practices. 

Given the shortcomings of these common approaches to educator preparation, how should we prepare teachers instead, and what are the appropriate philosophical starting points for educators who believe in any kind of objective reality? These are important questions for teacher education programs but also for the field at large. One place to start is with the belief that some things are true and some things can be known—in other words, with thoughtful assent to the idea of objective reality. This includes acknowledging the epistemological tensions involved in the embrace of critical theory. It also involves a robust review of theories of knowledge and epistemology rather than the surface-level treatment of Piaget and Dewey that “foundations of education” courses often involve.

This conceptual orientation can and should lead to a renewed emphasis on rigorous research, including cognitive theory, developmental psychology, and the nature of evidence. In education, it is no longer a given that a large experimental or quasi-experimental study is the best way to identify effective practices. Rather, many researchers give equal or greater primacy to subjective analysis, narrative, first-person accounts, and descriptions of phenomena. While valuable to frame initial questions and guide exploration, these methods, by definition, cannot provide widely generalizable information about techniques or interventions that are effective at scale. 

However, a renewed emphasis on objective reality and evidence may still suffer from a lack of a unifying philosophical framework. Teaching, a work that is deeply individual and relational, can best be understood in a framework that acknowledges the problems of our current society and bases solutions on individual dignity, more than conceptualization of overbearing and oppressive social structures. To meet this need, our field would be well served by a theoretical reorientation toward personalism, the philosophical movement oriented around the nature and dignity of the human person, rather than Marxism or a variant of critical materialism. Personalist thought has been around for centuries and was developed and expanded in the twentieth century. It is widely associated with Christian thinkers, including the late Pope John Paul II as well as Jacques Maritain, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. But the core idea of personalism—an emphasis on the primacy, dignity, and integrity of the human person—has applicability and value in secular contexts as well, and serves as a coherent and valuable organizing principle for educational theory and teacher education in particular.

As scholar Bennet Gilbert writes: 

Personalism always begins its analysis of reality with the person at the centre of consciousness, to which it attaches the most profound worth. Some versions develop this through ontology or metaphysics; some, through theologies associated with most denominations of the Abrahamic religions; and some, through the intersubjective and communitarian nature of human life.

Personalist thought offers a powerful means of prioritizing humans’ well-being and development as a way to realize their authentic potential, based on their human nature. Scholars such as Margarita Mooney Clayton have explored the value of such approaches in education, in terms of both our relationships with students and our way of conceptualizing teaching. Personalist thought has relevance even beyond the religious, as there is value in starting with the student and family as the unit of analysis rather than an ideological construct or social class–related variable.  

In teaching, we should position the person, and his or her intrinsic value, at the center of any analysis, and the well-being and development of the person should be our aim from a practical as well as intellectual perspective. Critics of empiricism, and of the overly reductive reliance on metrics that sometimes accompanies empirical approaches, can find value in the idea that metrics and data themselves should not be the end. Rather, they have value because they help us reach an important goal: the well-being and development of our students. Personalism provides a powerful antidote, also, to critical, Marxist and materialist approaches, which reduce students’ individualism by focusing on slivers of identity or their membership in a collective class or identity-based group. Common educational practices, from student discipline and conduct proceedings to individualized special education planning, take on new significance when we place the dignity and integrity of the person at the center. In fact, in some educational fields, we already focus on the importance of the individual person; special educators routinely use a practice called person-centered planning in helping students with disabilities transition toward college, employment, or other adult services.

There is ample room in the field for both theoretical and practical work that explores the dignity and integrity of the human person as a foundational concept in teacher preparation. A foundation in human rights and the dignity of the person also allows for thoughtful consideration of how best to meet the needs of our increasingly diverse society, allowing for honest and thoughtful examination of our society’s shortcomings. Such an orientation allows for thoughtful treatment of disability rights, cultural and language diversity, and diversity of beliefs and viewpoints. It also allows educators to conceptualize human rights and dignity in a way that values individualism rather than defining the self through membership in various identity-based groups. 

This shift requires reorienting our teacher education curriculum away from critical pedagogies to provide a stronger foundation in philosophy and ethics, with an emphasis on the nature and value of the person. Continued reliance on data and evidence can ensure our pedagogy and interventions are grounded in reality and truth, geared toward human flourishing rather than ideological agendas. Family engagement, in a personalist paradigm, takes on new significance, as families play an important role in nurturing children and advocating for their needs. And a personalist perspective will push us to reimagine and improve many common “equity-based” practices, which risk reducing students to representatives of a given ethnic, language, ability-based or gender group rather than seeing them as unique individuals.

Reorienting our teacher education systems around personalism is no quick fix, given conflicts with existing licensure requirements, textbooks, professional development frameworks, P–12 curriculum and pedagogical approaches, and so on. But by doing so, we can reorient teachers and schools toward an authentic valuing of human dignity and relationships, justify and deepen our use of evidence, and continue to strengthen the way that teachers and schools engage with families, individuals, and society. We owe it to future and current teachers, and the students and families they serve, to begin such work. By doing so, we can equip them to navigate our era’s challenges and serve their students’ needs while grounding their practice in objective reality and discernible truth. 

Patricia Rice Doran is professor and chair of the special education department at Towson University and a parent of six. She writes in her personal capacity here; her views are her own. 

Image by littleny and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 388, known as the CARE Act, into law on Friday, a move hailed by pro-life advocates as a vital step in safeguarding pregnancy centers that offer life-affirming support to women and families.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, prohibits state and local officials from discriminating against pregnancy centers for not providing or promoting killing babies in abortions.

It also shields these centers from regulations that could hinder their mission to provide counseling, resources, and care to pregnant women.

“Many women seeking abortions say they’d prefer to choose life if they had more support. While pregnancy centers can fulfill that need, they face real and growing threats,” said Denise Burke, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

She added:

“Thankfully, the CARE Act prohibits state and local officials from discriminating against pregnancy centers simply because they do not provide, counsel in favor of, or refer for abortion. It also ensures that pregnancy centers can continue to provide meaningful, life-affirming care to women, families, and the communities they serve. ADF commends Rep. Amy Regier, Sen. Sue Vinton, Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, and the Montana Legislature for their leadership, and Gov. Gianforte for signing the CARE Act into law. We are also deeply grateful to the Montana Family Foundation for their work on this bill and many others that promote a pro-family, pro-freedom culture in the state. By protecting pregnancy centers, we affirm the dignity of women and prioritize the physical, emotional health, and well-being of the woman, her baby, and the family.”

The CARE Act, which passed the Montana Legislature with strong Republican support, ensures that the state’s approximately 20 pregnancy centers can continue operating without fear of targeted restrictions. Pro-life groups, including the Montana Family Foundation, celebrated the law as a victory for women and unborn children.

The signing comes amid ongoing debates over abortion in Montana, where abortion remains legal under a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling.

The post Montana Governor Signs Bill Protecting Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.