Prager U

Is Evil Proof Against God? Where Does It Come From?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally posted January of 2016 – fixed some media today

Description of the above video:

  • If there is a God, why is there so much evil? How could any God that cares about right and wrong allow so much bad to happen? And if there is no God, who then determines what is right and what is wrong? The answers to these questions, as Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, go to the heart of ethics, morality and how we know what it means to be a decent person.

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either.

[….]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 13, 38.

Description of the above video:

  • Isn’t human suffering proof that a just, all-powerful God must not exist? On the contrary, says Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft. How can “suffering” exist without an objective standard against which to judge it? Absent a standard, there is no justice. If there is no justice, there is no injustice. And if there is no injustice, there is no suffering. On the other hand, if justice exists, God exists. In five minutes, learn more.

Description of the above video:

  • A student asks a question of Ravi Zacharias about God condemning people [atheists] to hell. This Q&A occurred after a presentation Ravi gave at Harvard University, and is now one of his most well-known responses in the apologetic sub-culture. This is an updated version to my 2nd edit of this on my YouTube.

Description of the above video:

  • Is evil rational? If it is, then how can we depend on reason alone to make a better world? Best-selling author Dennis Prager has a challenging answer.

Description of the above video:

  • Atheists Trying to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too on Morality. This video shows that when an atheist denies objective morality they also affirm moral good and evil without the thought of any contradiction or inconsistency on their part.

EVERY ONE HAS HEARD people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”–‘That’s my seat, I was there first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first?”–“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”–“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that some thing has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

(accuser) “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”

(responder) “Your right, I apologize.”

(accuser) “That’s my seat, I was there first!”

(responder) “Your right, you were. Here you go.”

(accuser) “Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.”

(responder) “Oh gosh, I forgot, here you go.”

(accuser) “Come on, you promised.”

(responder) “Your right, lets go to the movies.”

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law–with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced! If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong–in other words, if there is no Law of Nature–what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, 1 apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money–the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done–well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it–and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much–we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so–that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 17-21.

After reading that portion of CLASSIC Lewis, here is some thoughts from a philosopher that I disagree with on many points (he is an atheist after all), but he argues well for the following, even if later rejecting it:

If the reader is not familiar with Mere Christianity, I would urge him or her to buy it. The first chapter alone is worth the cost of the book. It is a brilliant piece of psychology. In it, Lewis sums up two crucial aspects of the human condition. We can see the first aspect in the passage quoted. Human beings do quarrel in the way Lewis describes. We are moral agents who cannot help feeling that there are some things we ought to do, and that there are other things we ought not to do. We believe, sometimes despite ourselves, that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that there are certain principles of conduct to which we and all other human beings ought to adhere. In our dealings with other people we constantly appeal to those principles. We are quick to notice when others violate them. We get defensive and make excuses when it appears that we have violated them ourselves. We get defensive even when no one else is around. We accuse ourselves when no else does, and we rationalize our behavior in front of our consciences just as we would in front of another person. We cannot help applying to ourselves the principles we firmly believe apply to all. To use Alvin Plantinga’s term, the belief in morality is basic. Even when we reject that belief in our theoretical reasoning, it comes back to haunt us at every turn. We can never really get away from it. There is a reason why our legal system defines insanity as the inability to tell right from wrong: people who lack that ability have lost an important part of their humanity. They have taken a step down towards the level of beasts.

Even if, in our heart of hearts, we all believe in morality, we do not necessarily share the exact same moral values. Differences regarding values are at least a part of what we quarrel about. Yet Lewis correctly recognizes that our differences in this area never amount to a total difference. The moral beliefs human beings entertain display broad cross-cultural similarities. Ancient Egyptians did not appreciate having their property stolen any more than we do. A brother’s murder, a wife’s infidelity, or a friend’s betrayal would have angered them, just as it angers us. Human nature has not changed much for tens of thousands of years. It does not change at all when one travels to the other side of the globe.

I did not believe Lewis the first time I read him, or even the second time. This idea, that there is a fundamental underlying unity to the moral fabric of humanity, is a hard one to accept. Think about those suicidal fanatics who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. They “knew” they were doing the right thing, that Allah would reward them in heaven with virgins galore. How radically different from our own values the values of some Muslims must seem! Yet there is common ground. Even the most militant Muslims despise thieves, cheats, and liars, just as Christians. Jews, and atheists do. They value loyalty and friendship. just as we do. They love their children and their parents. just as we do. They even condemn murder, at least within their own societies. It is only when they deal with outsiders like us that some of them may seem like (and in fact, be) monsters. To distinguish between insiders and outsiders, and to treat the latter horribly, is actually not so unusual in human history. Expanding one’s “inside group” until it encompasses all of humanity is something of an innovation. When we consider all this, the moral gulf between us and them does not seem so unbridgeable. Our admittedly great differences occur against a background of fundamental similarities. Similarities guaranteed by the fact that we are all stuck being human. So it seems Lewis was right, despite my earlier skepticism. Universal moral themes can and do underpin the diversity of our moral opinions.

[….]

Moral statements, then, cannot be mere matters of taste and opinion. They essentially involve an appeal to principles that transcend both the wishes of any one individual, and the customs of any one culture or society. That there are such principles, and that we cannot really escape from them, are points Lewis successfully illuminates. It thus seems very plausible to suppose that when our moral statements appeal to these principles in an appropriate and rational manner, they deserve to be called truths.

Andrew Marker, The Ladder: Escaping from Plato’s Cave (iUniverse.com, 2010), 108-110, 111-112.

These two babies explain better:

No Free Lunch

Published by Papa Giorgio

I just will drop this here that the #1 the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) recommends from their top five books is:

1. Economics in One Lesson (Henry Hazlitt, 1946)

The fact that I recently dedicated an article to this masterpiece shows the special attachment I have to Henry Hazlitt and this work in particular. In Economics in One Lesson, the author debunks a series of widespread economic fallacies using a simple and accessible language. If you wish to learn more about some basic, though important, economic principles, this is your book. One piece of advice before starting to read it: get rid of your prejudices and preconceptions so that you can make the most of it.

Stossel

John Stossel investigates a New York City park bathroom that cost $2 million to build. (This video was made 7-years ago… factor in inflation [printing money].)

  • For that price you might expect gold-plated fixtures—but it’s just a tiny building with four toilets and two sinks. New York City Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver says $2 million was a good deal because “New York City is the most expensive place to build.” He estimates that future bathrooms will cost more than $3 million. Commissioner Silver argues that this park, on the outskirts of Brooklyn, will get so much use that it must be built to last, and that can be expensive. Yet privately managed Bryant Park, in the middle of Manhattan, gets much more use and its recent bathroom renovation cost just $271,000. Since government spends other people’s money, it doesn’t need to worry about cost or speed. Every decision is bogged down by time-wasting “public engagement,” inflated union wages, and productivity-killing work rules. Two million dollars for a bathroom. That’s your government at work.

Prager-U

Few people have had as profound an impact on modern economics as economist Milton Friedman. His Nobel Prize-winning ideas on free enterprise resonated throughout the world and continue to do so. Johan Norberg, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Friedman’s fascinating story.

O.G. No Free Lunch

Milton Friedman gives his thoughts on something called the “free lunch myth”. The idea is that the government can provide stuff for free at nobodies expense. Milton Friedman thinks this is false and he tells us why. Share with Bernie Sanders supporters you know.

NATIONAL REVIEW has a wonderful series on the issue. Longer videos, but well worth your time”

Father Robert Sirico | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

David L. Bahnsen and Father Sirico discuss the philosophical and theological foundations of American free enterprise. Father Robert Sirico is a Priest, Author, and the Cofounder and President of the Acton Institute.

Dr. Hunter Baker | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

In Episode 2, David and guest Dr. Hunter Baker define human action, defend the dignity of work, and dissect the dangers of collectivism. Hunter Baker, J.D., Ph.D. serves as dean of arts and sciences and professor of political science at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.

Dennis Prager | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

David speaks with guest Dennis Prager, author, host of The Dennis Prager Show and founder of PragerU, about the many ways covetousness and class envy corrode good economics, the nature of inequality, and how the Left’s culture of entitlement destroys the American value system.

Larry Kudlow | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

Bahnsen speaks with Larry Kudlow, former director of the National Economic Council and host of Kudlow on Fox Business, about why incentives are the heart of economics. The two discuss the history of supply-side economics, discuss the regulatory policies and problems that disincentivize businesses and households, and address the disease of wokeness in American boardrooms.

Ryan T. Anderson | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

Thanks to the Left’s culture of class envy, private property has become a four-letter word in popular culture. In this episode of No Free Lunch, Ryan Anderson, author and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, joins host David Bahnsen to examine the theological justification for accumulating private property, discuss how private property creates prosperity and encourages compassion, and debate the State’s role in private-property protection.

Doug Wilson | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

David hosts Pastor Doug Wilson to discuss virtue and discipline not simply as desirable moral characteristics in economics, but as the very necessity of free markets.

(BONUS EP.) Sen. Ted Cruz | No Free Lunch with David Bahnsen

David Bahnsen speaks with guest Senator Ted Cruz about the government’s role in free markets and the conservative vision for sound economic policy.

However, the PHRASE “There ain’t no such thing as free lunch,” is made into an acronym (TANSTAAFL). And it is used to great delight in various and sundry ways: here, here, here, here, here, and here, as some examples. It’s origin dates back quite some time. But QUOTE ORIGIN did some bang up work on the matter. LIBERTARIANISM.ORG has the intro to the fable:

“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” has been a popular libertarian slogan since the 1960s. The slogan’s meaning is simple: you cannot make something from nothing. In a political context, the state cannot promise fantastical benefits without eventually increasing taxes.

Although Robert Heinlein is responsible for popularizing the slogan, he is not its creator. The phrase might seem a little alien because it is associated with an old business practice that diminished over time following the Great Depression. Between 1870 and 1920, bars and taverns served free lunches with the purchase of a drink to entice new customers. Salty food was served to get customers to drink more beer and spend more money.

The first use of TANSTAAFL in its modern context can be found in an article entitled “Economics in Eight Words” in the El Paso Herald-​Post from 1938, likely written by a man named Walter Morrow, editor-​in-​chief of The Southwestern Group of Scripps-​Howard Newspapers.

“Economics in Eight Words”

Once upon a time a great and wise king ruled a populous and prosperous land. The width and breadth of his kingdom were measured in thousands of leagues.

But a plague of poverty came upon that land, and no man knew its cause. There were mighty and inconclusive arguments in the halls of government, and learned graybeards in the schools advocated this remedy or that.

The king, seeing that his people were starving and distressed in the midst of plenty, called his wisest counsellors from the four quarters of the kingdom.

Seated on his golden throne and arrayed in his royal robes, he commanded them to lend him their wisdom. Then began an argument that lasted all through the night, until the King’s head drooped wearily with the weight of the sapphires and diamonds in his golden crown. As dawn was breaking he arose and said:

“Here is only confusion of tongues. I have heard many of you speak of a science called economics, which may prove the key to my people’s troubles.

“Mark well my words: One month hence let all the economists of my kingdom assemble here, bringing with them a short and simple text on this subject of economics, so that I may find light and my people may be saved.”

A month passed. The economists assembled, and their number was two thousand and ten.

“Where is my short text on economics?” asked the king.

“O, sire,” replied the chief economist, “we have it not. To prepare such a text will require at least a year.”

“That,” said the king, “is a long time, and my people languish. But go, now, and get to work without delay.” A twelvemonth later the economists took their places in the great audience hall, around the crystal walls of which stood the palace guards, armed with spears and crossbows. Then stood forth the gray-​bearded chief economist.

“O, King,” he said, “We have labored with all diligence and have prepared the short text on economics for which you asked. We have it here in 87 volumes of 600 pages each, profusely illustrated with charts and graphs.”

The king, exceedingly wroth, raised his scepter and let it fall with a crash, so that the great sapphire in its tip bit deeply into the table top before him. And the guards, raising their crossbows, shot one thousand and five of the economists.

“Now,” thundered the king, “get you gone, and return not until you have written me a really brief text on economics.”

And the remaining economists fled down the long hall, and the iron doors of the palace clanged behind them.

But, another year having passed, they returned, and the aged spokesman spoke with prideful voice:

“Sire, at last we have just what you want. We have reduced our work on economics to 63 volumes by eliminating the graphs and charts.”

Again the king raised his scepter and brought it down, with such force this time that the great sapphire remained embedded in the walnut and the pearl of the table top. Again the guards shot their crossbows, and again the number of economists was reduced by half. And those left alive fled once more from the king’s wrath.

Year after year they returned to the palace, bringing each time a slightly more condensed version of the text on economics. But never was the king satisfied, and each time the palace guards shot more economists until at last only one remained alive.

He was a man of profound wisdom, but aged and feeble, so that never had he been able to make his voice heard above the disputations of his colleagues.

And a day came when this last economist plodded slowly to the palace and sought audience with the king, himself now a graybeard, sad and bent with pondering the troubles of his people. Trembling, the last economist approached the throne, prostrated himself before the king, and spoke:

“Your majesty, I have reduced the subject of economics to a single sentence, so brief and so easily remembered that it was not necessary to put it on paper. Yet I will wager my head that you will find my text a true one, and not to be disputed.”

“Speak on,” cried the king, and the palace guards leveled their crossbows. But the old economist rose fearlessly to his feet, stood face to face with the king and said:

“Sire, in eight words I will reveal to you all the wisdom that I have distilled through all these years from all the writings of all the economists who once practiced their science in your kingdom. Here is my text:

“There ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”

This also comes by way of LIBERTARIAMS.ORG’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL via CATO! Good stuff.

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (Milton Friedman) – The Turney Collection

  • Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century, and the leader of the Chicago School of economics. In this video from the grand opening of the Cato Institute’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1993, Milton Friedman gives a talk about popular political aphorisms, one of his favorites being the one he helped popularize in the title of his 1975 book, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

The Amazing History of Christmas

Published by Papa Giorgio

How much do you know about Christmas – about its origins and its many beloved traditions? Do you know where the idea of stocking-stuffers comes from? Or how lights found their way onto the Christmas tree? Or why we all have the jolly, red-suited, white-haired image of Santa Claus in our heads? In this video, historian William Federer explores the holiday’s rich and unique history.

  • “This is a full-blown, four-alarm holiday emergency here. We’re gonna press on, and we’re gonna have the hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny fucking Kaye. And when Santa squeezes his fat white ass down that chimney tonight, he’s gonna find the jolliest bunch of assholes this side of the nuthouse.” — Clark W. Griswold Jr.

What’s the Truth About the First Thanksgiving?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Should Americans celebrate Thanksgiving as a day of gratitude? Or should they mourn it as a day of guilt? Michael Medved, author of The American Miracle, shares the fascinating story of the first Thanksgiving. (See also my MAIN THANKSGIVING DAY POST)

SQUANTO

Dennis Prager interviews Eric Metaxas about his article entitled “The Miracle of Squanto’s Path to Plymouth.” In the discussion what becomes clear is that America had a divine hand in its founding and ultimately the reasoning for this was the overwhelming good in influencing other nations in her history. He has written a book on this a while back:

➤ Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving

A great historical purview of God’s care for the world.

Some Medved Stumping for His Book

“Greed” and the Free Market (Milton Friedman)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Few people have had as profound an impact on modern economics as economist Milton Friedman. His Nobel Prize-winning ideas on free enterprise resonated throughout the world and continue to do so. Johan Norberg, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Friedman’s fascinating story.

With the recent passing of Walter Williams, I watched a video of him [Thomas Sowell’s tribute] that reminded me of a video of Milton Friedman on the Donahue Show. So I wanted to combine them for affect.

Biden/Harris & Harris/Walz Monetary Policy Cause Inflation and Shortages

Published by Papa Giorgio

…First, the greedflation story ignores business competition. How could so many firms suddenly command higher profit margins? Corporate concentration didn’t dramatically increase during the pandemic. Firms didn’t magically gain more market power or suddenly become greedier. To believe in greedflation, we’d therefore have to think that businesses across many sectors colluded by using their pricing power to raise prices by limiting their output. But in most industries the urge to undercut rivals and grab market share would undermine this coordination. Moreover, real output actually grew strongly in 2021 and 2022, while inflation surged, thus contradicting the idea that collusive efforts to withhold output was what drove rising prices.

Second, the greedflation tale overlooks consumers. How could customers suddenly afford higher prices across many industries? If businesses in some sectors with price-insensitive customers jacked up prices to puff their profits, those consumers would have less money to spend elsewhere, reducing demand and prices for other goods. This would leave overall inflation largely unchanged. To get a situation in which all prices are rising—a macroeconomic inflation—therefore requires more overall spending, perhaps indicating that there was more money available to spend to begin with.

This points us to the real story: Far from profits driving inflation, inflation and temporarily higher profits were both being driven by a third factor: excessive macroeconomic stimulus.

(CATO | See also CITY JOURNAL)

Supply chains were broken by GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND RULES during covid. It just “didn’t happen” by accident or natural causes. Supply chains were cut by enforcement. As above… long haul video!

  • NEWSBUSTERS: “Brooks Surprised ‘Responsible’ Harris Would Endorse Soviet-Like Price Controls”

JOHN STOSSEL on Greed and Inflation

Inflation is sharply up. Now it’s 7%. What went wrong?

STEVE FORBES for PRAGER U ~ Inflation

Look for the source of a society’s collapse, and you’ll usually find the i-word (inflation) at its core. So what exactly is inflation? How does it work? Why is it so dangerous? And how does it affect your everyday life? Steve Forbes breaks it down.

“GREEDFLATION”

The entire article from REASON is this:

The Misuse of Data Behind the ‘Greedflation’ Narrative
There’s no evidence that greed is causing inflation.

The chairman of the WAYS & MEANS Committee has a wonderful [7-2022] fact check page refuting the Democrats “Greedflation” position. I have been warning of this inflationary cliff for many years in my posts on Quantitative Easing.

Likewise, this is a decent article on the topic of disproving a large portion of the “Greedflation” charge:

As the US economy continues to grapple with persistently high inflation, President Biden has repeatedly blamed “corporate greed” as the primary culprit.

The administration has accused companies of engaging in “greedflation” and “shrinkflation” – raising prices and reducing product sizes to maximize profits at the expense of consumers.

However, a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco challenges this narrative, providing a more nuanced and evidence-based understanding of the factors driving the current inflationary pressures.

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s research shows that while there has been an increase in markups (the difference between a product’s selling price and its production cost) in select industries like motor vehicles, the overall markup rate has remained largely in line with previous economic recoveries. Contrary to Biden’s claims, the data suggests that fluctuations in corporate markups have not been a driving force behind the ups and downs of inflation during the post-pandemic recovery.

The report attributes the current inflationary pressures to other factors, such as the massive government stimulus spending and the Federal Reserve’s low-interest-rate policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures boosted consumer demand at a time when the economy was experiencing supply chain disruptions and shortages, leading to a sharp rise in prices across various sectors.

While corporate profits did spike during the economic recovery, the Fed’s analysis indicates that this is not unusual compared to previous recoveries, such as the Great Recession. The increase in profits is largely attributable to pandemic-era subsidies and lower business taxes, rather than a deliberate effort to exploit consumers through “greedflation.” ….

(More at TAMPA FREE PRESS)

The CAROLINA JOURNAL has a wonderful article as well.

Price inflation is never caused by greed. It’s always caused by a growing money supply. The money supply has grown big-time since 2020, and now we pay a lot more for food and housing. [RPT: actually, the money supply has been growing since Obama]

A new report claims “resounding evidence” shows that high corporate profits are a main driver of ongoing inflation, and companies continue to keep prices high even as their inflationary costs drop.

The report, compiled by the progressive Groundwork Collaborative think tank, found corporate profits accounted for about 53% of inflation during last year’s second and third quarters. Profits drove just 11% of price growth in the 40 years prior to the pandemic, according to the report.

Is this true? Unraveling this mysterious relationship between corporate profit and inflation is easy once we clearly define what profit and inflation are. This allegation that corporate profits accounted for 53 percent of inflation is a result of using wrong definitions and reasoning by mainstream economics researchers.

First, let us see what inflation is. As Henry Hazlitt explained in his article “Inflation in One Page,” inflation is “an increase in the quantity of money and credit. Its chief consequence is soaring prices. Therefore inflation—if we misuse the term to mean the rising prices themselves—is caused solely by printing more money. For this the government’s monetary policies are entirely responsible.”

Faulty reasoning by mainstream economists occurs because of their faulty way of mistaking the price rise effect of inflation as inflation itself. They are putting the cart before the horse. Rising prices is only one of the chief effects of inflation, not inflation itself.

Another mistake that mainstream economists make is that they use the long disproved Marxist “production cost/labor theory of value” to explain the rise in the prices of consumer goods, as is the case with this research done by the Groundwork Collaborative think tank. Production cost (corporate profit) doesn’t determine the prices of consumer goods. The subjective value of the consumer determines those prices. In this article I do not have the space to discuss this very important subjective value theory. I advise my readers to study the literature of the Austrian School of economics.

They also mistake individual commodity price fluctuation for inflation. In a market economy, prices of various commodities are always changing. Such price fluctuation doesn’t reflect the mythical general price level that mainstream economists use to measure inflation.

Also, if corporate profits explain the rise in prices of consumer goods—what mainstream economists call inflation—then what explains the rise in the prices of producer goods? The same corporate profits? We need to remember here that inflation not only increases the prices of consumer goods but also producer goods. When the supply of money rises due to the Fed’s easy money policies of creating dollars out of thin air, it dilutes the purchasing power (value) of all existing dollars in the economy. And because dollars are legal tender money (a common medium of exchange), they will buy less of both consumer and producer goods (i.e., looking from the goods side it will look as if their prices have gone up). Actually, the dollar is losing its value and so buying less of everything against which it is being used in market exchange. …..

(More at MISES.ORG)

Few people have had as profound an impact on modern economics as economist Milton Friedman. His Nobel Prize-winning ideas on free enterprise resonated throughout the world and continue to do so. Johan Norberg, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Friedman’s fascinating story.

With the recent passing of Walter Williams, I watched a video of him [Thomas Sowell’s tribute] that reminded me of a video of Milton Friedman on the Donahue Show. So I wanted to combine them for affect.

Is This the End of Women’s Sports? (PLUS MORE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

PRAGER UIf we don’t believe that biological men have a significant advantage over biological women in sports, then why did women’s sports ever need to be created in the first place? Let’s stop fooling ourselves.

I have more posts that include Selina Soule, the girl in the above video:

  • The Destruction of Women’s Sports No Big Deal… To the Left (March 2019)
  • Girls’ Civil Rights Violated By Trangender “Athlete” (August 2019)
  • The Trans War On Women #FairPlay (May 2020)

1995 NIKE AD – From youth sports to collegiate athletics to the Olympics, female athletes in every sport and at every level deserve a safe and fair playing field.

What about this “intersex” charge? Does this then change our position as to being allowed into a female sport? No. XY is still present, as well as high levels of testosterone during puberty giving a life-long advantage over other [genuine] females:

Jessica Gill’s Insights Into “Intersex” | Plus: Poor Mans Podcast Stuff

Heather Mac Donald Says DEI Is Ruining America’s Health System

Published by Papa Giorgio

DEI initiatives have emerged in business, academia, and government departments in the name of “diversity” and “inclusivity.” Bestselling author Heather Mac Donald and PragerU CEO Marissa Streit discuss how DEI policies that prioritize race and gender above merit are destroying Western Civilization by infiltrating key institutions, such as universities, medicine, and the arts.

 

Thankfulness [Gratitude] Is the Lynchpin To Happiness/Joy

Published by Papa Giorgio

RUMBLE DESCRIPTION:

This is a short excerpt from a Dennis Prager “Fireside Chat” (Ep. 239 — Essential Lessons: Gratitude) as an addition to my turn at teaching a section for an early AM (weekly) book study at church. The book is John MacArthur’s “1 and 2 Thessalonians and Titus: Living Faithfully in View of Christ’s Coming,” my portion was chapter six.

The previous guys have always tried to get through all the questions in order, but we all bloviate a bit — I mean, it is a bunch of guys hanging together. So, I decided to — instead of going sequentially through the questions in the study book — camp out on a couple verses/topics. I made notes of where my thoughts were going from the text, which was 1st Thessalonians 5:12-28 (PDF)

But this audio served as an excellent addition to a point I was making, which is in verses:

16 Rejoice always

17 pray constantly

18 give thanks in everything …

I see these verses in similar fashion to the audio. The unthankful are not happy. And in the Christian faith, we have an awful lot to be thankful of. See my SEDERS post: “Keeping Our Christian Identity Through ‘Seders’“, especially points 4 and 5.

Here are some commentaries:

Thessalonians 

16. Rejoice evermore] alway (R. V.)—same as in ch. 1:2. 2:16, &c. This seems a strange injunction for men afflicted like the Thessalonians (see ch. 1:6, 2:14, 3:2–4; 2 Ep. 1:4). But the Apostle had learnt, and taught the secret, that in sorrow endured for Christ’s sake there is hidden a new spring of joy. See Rom. 5:3–5, “Let us glory in our tribulations;” 2 Cor. 12:10; and the Beatitude of Christ in Matt. 5:10–12; also 1 Pet. 4:12–14.

This phrase supplied the keynote of St Paul’s subsequent letter, written from prison, to the Philippians (ch. 4:4, 5).

17. Pray without ceasing] Twice the Apostle has used this adverb (ch. 1:3, 2:13), referring to his own constant grateful remembrance of his readers before God. Numberless other objects occupied his mind during the busy hours of each day; and the Thessalonians could not be distinctly present to his mind in every act of devotion; still he felt that they were never out of remembrance, and thankfulness on their account mingled with and coloured all his thoughts and feelings at this time. In like manner Prayer is to be the accompaniment of our whole life—a stream ever flowing, now within sight and hearing, now disappearing from view, forming lie under-current of all our thoughts and giving to them its own character and tone.

18. In every thing give thanks] This again the Apostle taught by example as well as precept; see ch. 1:2; 3:9, 10; and comp. Ph. 4:6; Col. 4:2. “In everything,” even in persecution and shame, suffered for Christ’s sake; comp. Phil. 1:29, 2 Cor. 12:9, 10.

Prayer and Thanksgiving are the two wings of the soul by which it rises upward to God.

for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you] Rather, to you-ward (R. V.):—“You Thessalonian believers—so greatly afflicted and tempted to murmuring and despondency—are the special objects of this Divine purpose, whose attainment is made possible for you in Christ Jesus. God intends that your life should be one of constant prayer, constant joy and thanksgiving.” In ch. 3:3 it was said that the Thessalonians were “appointed” to their extraordinary sufferings (comp. ch. 4:3). Now the reason of this appointment is shown; it is that they may grow perfect in thankfulness, grateful for the bitter as well as for the sweet in their experiences,—for

“each rebuff

That turns earth’s smoothness rough,

Each sting that bids nor sit nor stand, bit go.”

Such cheerfulness of soul needs strong faith, and is won through hard trial. Rom. 5:3–5 supplies the reasoning by which tribulation is made matter of thanksgiving and the sorrows of the Christian are turned to songs of joy.—On Christ Jesus, see note to ch. 2:14.

George G. Findlay, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, with Introduction, Notes, and Map, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898), 119–120.

NUMBERS

The section of the book beginning with these verses and continuing into chapter 14 recounts the development of a spirit of discontentment among the people, and their consequent murmuring against Moses and against the Lord. This murmuring, we are meant to understand, became a continuing characteristic and had a cumulative effect. It was not merely that the people murmured once or twice. They developed a murmuring, complaining spirit, and it was this that came to a climax at Kadesh Barnea, when they failed at a critical time of opportunity. They were turned back by God into the wilderness, and kept there for forty years. Israel finally entered into the Promised Land, but that generation of Israel did not, and were not allowed to enter by God. The lesson is not that they were finally lost, but that they were disqualified in the purposes of God—a grim and solemn reality. This murmuring, complaining, critical spirit, it is clear, got into them, and did something to them, rendering them progressively incapable of rising to their divine calling until, at a moment of crisis, they crashed.

[….]

The fact that this next instance of murmuring follows immediately after the incident recorded in verses 1–3 may suggest, that “the unbelieving and discontented mass did not discern the chastising hand of God at all in the conflagration which broke out at the end of the camp, because it was not declared to be a punishment, and was not preceded by a previous announcement.” This seems quite likely; otherwise it would be necessary to interpret the murmuring in this chapter as having reached such an extreme pitch that divine judgment was swift and general; whereas the pattern un folded in this and following chapters indicates rather that it had a cumulative effect, leading to the grim pronouncement at Kadesh Barnea (14:1ff.).

The spirit of murmuring becomes specific in these verses, and its cause attributed to the rabble among the people (this seems to be the force of the phrase “mixed multitude,” which one commentator renders as “riff-raff”). This rabble-rousing element among the people certainly spread a major disaffection throughout the camp. As Calvin comments, the contagion of vice easily spreads. But the responsibility for this disaffection fell upon Israel, and as the following verses show it was Israel, not merely the “rabble,” who were punished. The weariness they expressed with what they felt to be a monotonous diet of manna, and their disparagement of it, as they longed for the Egyptian fare they had known—fish in plenty and a variety of vegetables—kindled the divine anger.

One would have thought that Israel would never have forgotten the terrible conditions of their slavery in Egypt and the horrors, privations, and tortures that had made life such a misery for them, and would have been content with any change from that, let alone the dignity of a high calling and destiny and the provision of a faithful and bounteous God. But no; they were actually looking back to these Egyptian experiences as if they had been a paradise for them (v. 5).

From this we may learn that looking back on “the good old days” is always a matter of wearing rose-colored glasses. The one word to describe the attitude of those who do so is humbug! It was, of course, the existence of the false among the true in Israel that caused the trouble, for this is always a fruitful source of infection. The truth is, the spiritual destiny is intolerable for a worldly people to contemplate—hence the telltale phrase in verse 6, “nothing at all except this manna,” even when what follows (vv. 7–9) describes that manna as a pleasant, God-given food sent with the dew of heaven, and described in Psalm 78:24ff. as “the bread of heaven” and “angels’ food.” There are those for whom “nothing except manna” is heaven itself, and every kind of joy, and others for whom it is sheer hell and unbearable; for manna is a heavenly food, and to appreciate heavenly food one needs a heavenly taste.

James Philip and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Numbers, vol. 4, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1987), 124, 126–127.

PRAGER U

Have you ever envied someone else’s success? Do you sometimes wish you had another person’s life? Comparing yourself to other people will only put you on the fast track to an unhappy life. If You Want a Happy Life…

This week, Dennis shares an important message about what famous Christmas tunes call “the best time of the year.” ‘Tis the season to be merry, but happiness doesn’t happen to you. Pursuing happiness, like pursuing all good things in life, is a choice. How You Can Be Happy

Dennis Prager talks the connection between gratitude and happiness and much more in his latest Fireside Chat. Check it out, and have a very happy Thanksgiving! Fireside Chat Ep. 59 – Gratitude Creates Happiness

Want to be miserable, resentful, and bitter? Few people do, and yet many people are. Why? Because many people have the one primary character trait that leads to unhappiness. And you need to avoid it. Nationally syndicated talk show host Dennis Prager explains. The Key to Unhappiness

Is there an equation that can accurately predict how happy you will be? There is. Can you control the inputs of that equation, and thus your own happiness? You can. How? Dennis Prager, author of the best-selling book, “Happiness is a Serious Problem”, explains. Happiness Equation: U = I – R

Dennis Prager talks about one of humanity’s biggest pursuits–happiness. It’s mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Therapists and psychologists (and even pharmaceutical companies!) make their careers out of helping people be and feel happy. And we all know that being unhappy, and being around unhappy people, is no fun. Dennis will discuss why happiness, while great for personal and emotional reasons, is far more than a selfish pursuit. It is a moral obligation. Being happy around others is a necessary ingredient of growing up and accumulating friends. No one likes a Moody Mary. Also, more happiness makes for a better world. After all, how many of the world’s dictators and tyrants are motivated by happiness? None! So, learn how to be happy and learn why being happy is so important. Why Be Happy?

Doing what feels good in the moment may result in temporary pleasure, but will it lead to true happiness? This week, Dennis talks about the importance of not only having superficial fun but pursuing depth in your life. How is this achieved? Like all good things, you work at it! Ep. 318 — How to Live a Life of Depth

51% of young Americans are feeling depressed with a negative outlook on life, according to a recent survey. Why are they feeling so hopeless? Well if you are indoctrinated to hate your past, to live fearfully, and to expect the world to end, how could you not be? Ep. 186 — A Hopeless Generation?

American Infidels and the Left | Screams Before Silence

Published by Papa Giorgio

This entire post bleeds into the video at the end. I suggest you at last skip all this fodder, as important as it is, and watch that video at the bottom.

This is the video [below] that caused Google to remove Prager University’s ap from their store:

  • (PJ-MEDIA) There are messages that do not conform to the Accepted Narrative. If the messengers cannot be controlled, they have to be eliminated. So it should come as no surprise that a tech giant, with a history of left-wing proclivities and a cozy relationship with Democrats in power, found the excuse it needed to silence a dissident voice. (See also RIGHT SCOOP)

Radical Islam poses a significant threat to our freedom. The rise of anti-American rhetoric and violence in cities and universities is a direct result of the indoctrination led by those perpetrating a religious war against the West. PragerU’s short documentary features first-hand accounts from those who escaped Islamic rule and have come to warn America.

Featuring:

  • Ayman Abu Suboh (later Dor Shachar), a Palestinian who escaped to Israel from the terror of Hamas and later converted to Judaism.
  • Sophia Salma Khalifa, an Arab Muslim born in Israel who moved to the U.S. to earn her master’s degree from Stanford University.
  • Omar Vieira, retired U.S. Navy SEAL who served for 21 years and led high-risk operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations in the Middle East.
  • Jason Tuschen, retired U.S. Navy SEAL Command Master Chief who served for 27 years and was responsible for executing National Security Strategy in the Middle East.

MORE:

Just a couple, related , stories that I cam across recently. But first, just some excerpts on what we already know: “Amid a bitter election-year debate over illegal immigration, FBI Director Chris Wray told a Senate panel on Monday that dangerous individuals have entered the United States illegally at the southern border. (ABC)”

This story garnered the Left’s attention to say, “Ha, the open border in the South is not the issue…”

  • 736 known or suspected terrorists apprehended at U.S. border in fiscal 2023 – 66% of those apprehended at northern border (CENTER SQUARE)

However, the question becomes this… how many got away on our Southern Border? Remember, the number is higher today

These numbers don’t include gotaways, which are believed to also include KSTs. “Gotaways” is the official U.S. Customs and Border Patrol term that refers to those who illegally enter the U.S. between ports of entry, don’t return to Mexico or Canada, and are not apprehended. They total at least nearly 1.7 million since January 2021. However, the number is believed to be much higher because not all gotaways are known and or reported.

With people illegally entering the U.S. from over 170 countries, former ICE Chief Tom Homan told The Center Square some of these countries they are coming from are sponsors of terrorism.

“If you don’t think a single one of the 1.7 million [gotaways] is coming from a country that sponsors terrorism, then you’re ignoring the data,” he said. “That’s what makes this a huge national security issue.”

But yes, both borders are under assault: “Terrorist watch list apprehensions at northern border continue to break records.” Now you know the rest of the story.

Hijrah

In Islam, there is the idea of Hijrah.

The Hijrah, in Islamic lore, was the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina, where the Muslims ultimately outnumbered the local population and took over the city. Ever since then, Muslim migration to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of turning them Muslim is part of Islamic doctrine.

In fact, in the Qu’ran, Sura 4, Verse 100 says…

“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.”

Confirming the above video, PJ-MEDIA notes the “Sharia Courts” growth in Europe. And now Europe is in a battle under reported:

…. The English actor-turned-political-activist Lawrence Fox recently noted what was happening: “The Mayor of London is a Muslim. The mayor of Birmingham is a Muslim. The Mayor of Leeds is Muslim. Mayor of Blackburn – Muslim. The mayor of Sheffield is a Muslim. The mayor of Oxford is a Muslim. The mayor of Luton is a Muslim. The mayor of Oldham is Muslim. The mayor of Rochdale is Muslim. All this was achieved by only 4 million Muslims out of 66 million people in England.”

This kind of thing has happened before, but few remember. Back in the days when our schools and universities concentrated on teaching actual facts rather than leftist propaganda, race hatred, and gender fantasy, every schoolchild learned about the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Nowadays one would be hard-pressed to find someone under twenty who knows what a “Norman” was (they were people from Normandy, in northern France, where a large number of Norsemen from Scandinavia had settled), but a few decades ago any random student would have been able to tell you that this conquest was not just a military victory. It heralded the thorough transformation of English society.

The invading Normans were few in number compared to the English, but once they had defeated the defenders, they set about systematically to ensure that England would remain theirs in perpetuity. They removed the native English from positions of political and ecclesiastical power. Norman French mingled with the Old English language, ultimately creating the English language as we know it today. Historian Richard Southern observed that “no country in Europe, between the rise of the barbarian kingdoms and the 20th century, has undergone so radical a change in so short a time as England experienced after 1066.”

Until now. Lawrence Fox continued: “Today there are over 3,000 mosques in England. There are over 130 sharia courts. There are more than 50 Sharia Councils. 78 percent of Muslim women do not work, receive state support + free accommodation. 63 percent of Muslims do not work, receive state support + free housing. State-supported Muslim families with an average of 6 to 8 children receive free accommodation. Now every school in the UK is required to teach lessons about Islam. Has anyone ever been given an opportunity to vote for this?”

All this has already transformed Britain, and much more is to come. JNS recently reported that “honor-based abuse cases in England rose by more than 60% in two years, with 2,594 cases in 2022 vs. 1,599 in 2020.” It pointed out that “such crimes are common in many Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. (1.6 million people, or 2.7%, of the United Kingdom’s population identify as Pakistani, and 94,434, or 1.1%, as Bangladeshi, according to the 2022 U.K. census.)” Now honor crimes will be common in a new Muslim country, Britain. …..

Douglas Murray

‘Morally wicked’: Douglas Murray calls out commentator defending Hamas’ charter

Author Douglas Murray has called out an American political commentator for defending Hamas’ charter and claiming it does not want to kill Jewish people in Israel. Briahna Joy Gray claimed Hamas wants to limit the idea of a Jewish state and wants a democracy similar to what is seen in the United States. “There is something morally wicked about doing that. She would accept that in no other situation of something to explain what a terrorist group actually seeks to do,” Mr Murray told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

Susan Sarandon
#MeeTooUnlessYouAreAJew

Now, Susan Sarandon

NEWSBUSTERS has more on the issues with Susan and her #BelieveAllWomen… except Jewish women stance (BTW, the few week old video commentary included [to the right] has some rough language for those sensitive to it):

Susan Sarandon isn’t letting cancellation curb her pro-Palestinian views.

The Oscar-winning actress lost her representation late last year after uttering this tone-deaf comparison at a pro-Palestinian rally

Bottom of Form

“There are a lot of people that are afraid, that are afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.”

She also shouted along with the crowd, “Long live the Intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” according to The New York Post. Both comments are steeped in violent, antisemitic tropes.

[….]

Social media user Keren Picker walked with Sarandon during yet another pro-Palestinian protest in late April. Picker pressed the star on her positions regarding the Israeli/Hamas war. That included the mountains of evidence that Hamas did more than butcher hundreds of women.

The terror group sexually assaulted them in the most barbaric ways possible. 

Sarandon dubbed those assaults mere “myths.”

“We know that all of those myths about babies in ovens and the rapes,” Sarandon said in response to Picker’s interrogation.

“It’s not a myth. You’re denying, you’re denying the terror actions made on October 7th to so many innocent civilians,” Picker countered. She shared the exchange on Instagram….

SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA covered this topic well:

AMI HOROWITZ

‘Me too unless you’re a Jew’: Ami Horowitz slams Susan Sarandon’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz says actress Susan Sarandon “dropped the veneer” of being anti-Israel and instead is openly an anti-Semite. Mr Horowitz joined Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi to discuss the actress’ stance on the Israel-Hamas war. “Susan Sarandon had dropped the veneer of simply being anti-Israel but being an open anti-Semite a while ago,” he said. “You can believe the New York Times – I’m sure is Susan Sarandon’s Bible, that interviewed 150 rape victims, rape counsellors, medical emergency personnel, and actually had video the rapes that happened, you can do that, or you can believe Hamas, because that’s essentially what she’s doing. “I mean, me too unless you’re a Jew.”

Her radicalism is reverberating through a film being made. Here is DAILY MAIL’S story on her anti-Semitism ruining what should b a fun film to make:

… The plot will follow three longtime friends who travel to Key West, Florida to be bridesmaids in a surprise wedding for their other close pal, played by Midler.

But despite playing a group of loving gal pals on screen, insiders tell DailyMail.com that the relationship between Sarandon and her co-stars was fraught on set after she persisted with her controversial campaign following her previous anti-Semitic remarks. 

‘Bleecker Street is furious at Susan for the way she’s been carrying on. So is Bette, who is a proud Jew and hates what Susan is doing,’ a film insider told DailyMail.com. 

‘Sheryl is upset at her too, as is Megan Mullally, the whole crew and cast are. It’s a mess. 

‘Her co-stars are disappointed that so many people worked so hard on it, and now Susan is ruining it for everybody.’….

Screams Before Silence

Which brings me all the way to this excellent, but truly tragic — tragic because it had to be made at all — documentary:

A must-watch documentary. #ScreamsBeforeSilence sheds light on the unspeakable sexual violence committed on October 7. As heartbreaking as these stories in the documentary are, we cannot afford to look away. (ORIGINAL FILE)

Media Bias | Dennis Prager & Nellie Bowles

Published by Papa Giorgio

(First few segments from this May 15th interview) Dennis talks with Nellie Bowles, former investigative reporter for the NY Times and now a regular columnist for the Free Press which she co-founded with Bari Weiss. Her new book is Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History. See also this short interview of Nellie via The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.

Follow Nellie at TWIX, and the FREE PRESS

What Is Fascism? Biden Admin and Amazon Explain

Published by Papa Giorgio

The NATIONAL REVIEW article Dennis Prager is reading from can be found here: “Biden White House Pressured Amazon to Censor Vaccine-Skeptical Books, Internal Emails Reveal” The PRAGER U video mentioned (and the excerpt I included) can be found here: “Big Business & Big Brother”. And the other THOMAS SOWELL video is via this YouTube Channel. Must read JIM JORDAN’S Twitter thread as well.

How biased are these pushes? Mollie Hemingway and Laura Ingraham explain:

‘The Federalist’ editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway discusses NewsGuard’s global disinformation index categorizing right-leading media outlets as ‘risky’ and left-leaning outlets as ‘least risky’ for disinformation on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’