While talent will always be first and foremost among how we judge and enjoy music sung by female vocalists and artists, we can’t shy away from the fact that looks can play a pretty important role in marketing a rockstar. It’s just an honest statement. As a music history site, our goal has always been to showcase the greatest music and musical artists in history.  While the majority of the singers on this list are female rockers we have included a few outside of the genre from the R&B, country, and jazz fields because as we always try to argue The post 25 Best Looking Female Rock And Pop Singers Of All Time appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

In an ad-hoc ceremony reminiscent of the famous Christmas Truce of the First World War, Chinese and Indian troops along a disputed border region exchanged sweets on Diwali. The two nations have contested a region called Ladakh for decades, but following a recent agreement to draw back from strategic chokepoints, relations are on the up […] The post Indian Soldiers Swap Candy with Chinese After Diplomacy Deescalates Troops at Diwali appeared first on Good News Network.

News Marvel’s What If…? What If…? Asks New Questions in Its Third and Final Season That’s one real big Avenger you got there By Molly Templeton | Published on November 11, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share It is once again time for Marvel’s superheroic What If…? advent calendar. Next month, the wackily punctuated series returns to play out some multiversal scenarios that would never be allowed to happen in the main Marvel timeline, from cowboy Shang-Chi to Storm, the Goddess of Thunder, to one big mecha Avenger that, yes, gives new meaning to “assemble.” The third and final season also features Agatha Harkness, Captain America, Bucky Barnes, the Red Guardian, the Hulk, Captain Peggy Carter, Howard the Duck, Darcy Lewis, Moon Knight, Valkyrie, Nebula, at least one Celestial, and ever so many more. As ever, Jeffrey Wright leads the proceedings as The Watcher. A press release says, “The series features an incredible voice cast that includes a host of stars who reprise their iconic roles,” but doesn’t actually specify which actors are voicing their cinematic or small screen characters—though it’s pretty clearly Kat Dennings as Darcy, Oscar Isaac as Moon Knight, Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson, and the iconic voice of Alison Sealy-Smith as Storm. What If…? is written by Matthew Chauncey, Ryan Little, and A.C. Bradley; the episodes are directed by Bryan Andrews and Stephan Franck. Eight new episodes arrive daily on Disney+ starting December 22nd.[end-mark] The post <i>What If…?</i> Asks New Questions in Its Third and Final Season appeared first on Reactor.

News The Return The Return Trailer: Ralph Fiennes & Juliette Binoche Act Up a Storm in Odyssey Adaptation The film will focus on a part of the epic that never gets much screentime: the return home By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on November 11, 2024 Screenshot: Bleeker Street Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Bleeker Street Italian director Uberto Pasolini has wanted to bring Homer’s The Odyssey to the screen for decades. He finally achieved his dream, and the result is The Return, which stars Ralph Fiennes as the titular king trying to find his way home and Juliette Binoche, who plays his wife, Penelope. We got a trailer today giving us a hint of both of those actors’ performances, which are unsurprisingly fantastic. “Working with Juliette and Ralph, most of the time you say action and you just watch and watch and watch because it is extraordinary,” Pasolini said at a press conference (per Variety) for the film. “They give you something more complex than you could ever have dreamed of. When you’re making a film, you live for these moments. It reminds you of what Bergman said, that the most beautiful thing to look at is the face. When these two faces communicate like they do in this film, it’s a blessing.” The trailer also “spoils” most of the story (if you can spoil a story pretty much everyone knows). As does the official synopsis, which you can read below: After 20 years away, Odysseus (Fiennes) washes up on the shores of Ithaca, haggard and unrecognizable. The King has returned from the Trojan War, but much has changed in his kingdom. His beloved wife Penelope (Binoche) is a prisoner in her own home, hounded by suitors vying to be king. Their son Telemachus faces death at the hands of these suitors, who see him as merely an obstacle to their pursuit of the kingdom. Odysseus has also changed—scarred by his experience of the Trojan war, he is no longer the mighty warrior from years past—but he must rediscover his strength in order to win back all he has lost. In addition to Fiennes and Binoche, The Return stars Charlie Plummer, Marwan Kenzari, Claudio Santamaria, and Ángela Molina. The script adaptation comes from John Collee, Edward Bond, and Pasolini. Pasolini wanted to focus on a certain aspect of the story that hasn’t got much screen time before. “The Return was born from my passion for Homer’s epic, and from the extraordinary fact that despite the ubiquity of the Odyssey in Western culture, and its timeless and universal themes, cinema has never done justice to the story of this soldier’s return to his land, his wife, his son,” Pasolini said in a press statement. “And today, Homer’s work forces us to confront the tragedy of war, of those who fight it and of those left behind, in a way that feels incredibly and sadly relevant.” You can see Pasolini’s vision when the film premieres in theaters on December 6, 2024. Check out the trailer below.[end-mark] The post <i>The Return</i> Trailer: Ralph Fiennes & Juliette Binoche Act Up a Storm in <i>Odyssey</i> Adaptation appeared first on Reactor.

Movies & TV The Penguin “Just once, tell me you’re proud of me!” — The Penguin’s “A Great or Little Thing” It’s time for the final showdown between Penguin and Sofia… By Keith R.A. DeCandido | Published on November 11, 2024 Credit: Macall Polay/HBO Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Macall Polay/HBO Ultimately, it’s all about our parents. Okay, that’s not all it’s about, but the central conflict of the eight episodes of The Penguin has boiled down to how Sofia Gigante has responded to her father’s abusive treatment of her (which we saw in great detail in “Cent’Anni”) and how Oz Cobb has responded to his mother’s abusive treatment of him. That last is a twist that shows up at the very beginning of this episode. Throughout the series, Francis Cobb has seemed oddly ungrateful to her surviving son. He has moved heaven and earth to keep her safe, and worked hard to provide a better life for her—it’s clear that everything he’s done has been for her. The twist, however, is that Francis has known all this time that Oz is responsible for the death of Jack and Benny, as we all learned last week. The trip to Monroe’s that Penguin told Sofia about at Alberto’s funeral in “Inside Man” and that we saw dramatized in “Top Hat” last week is revealed this week to have been meant to be Oz’s last night. Rex—the gangster for whom Francis did bookkeeping work—was going to “drive Oz home,” a euphemism for him getting whacked. But Francis changed her mind. She decided to use her son—her brilliant monster of a son—to improve her life. She would always hate him, but she would gladly use his brains, his cleverness, his ruthlessness, his insightfulness (the moment where she changes her mind is when Oz enumerates how well he knows her, mentioning the smile she uses when she wants someone to think she’s happy, plus that she smokes more when she’s thoughtful and drinks more when she’s sad), and, most importantly, his utter devotion to his mother. All this comes out in the remains of Monroe’s, trashed as so many other places in Gotham were by the Riddler’s destruction of the sea wall in The Batman. Sofia and her pet shrink Dr. Julian Rush have both Penguin and Francis prisoner. Thanks to Rush working his flashing-red-light mojo on Francis, both he and Sofia know the truth as well, and Sofia—wearing a sexy black dress with a red scarf and red pumps, looking like she should be performing at Monroe’s—wants Penguin to know the truth about his Mom. But Penguin’s monstrosity is too great. Despite the fact that he’s tied up, despite the fact that Sofia threatens to cut off Francis’ pinky finger (the same one he cut off of Alberto when he framed Maroni for killing her brother in “After Hours”), Penguin refuses to admit that he killed his brothers. Instead, he insists that this memory of Francis’ is all a symptom of her Lewy Body Dementia, that she doesn’t know what she’s saying. Credit: Macall Polay/HBO This entire scene is a masterpiece, with Colin Farrell constantly screaming both Penguin’s denials and his anger at his mother being mistreated; Cristin Milioti, dressed like she’s auditioning for Chicago, giving us a Sofia who is reveling in playing mindgames and ringleading this impromptu group therapy session; and Deirdre O’Connell showing Francis’ façade finally falling completely apart. We’d been assuming that the passive-aggressive snark she threw periodically at her son was just part of her dementia, but no: that was her true feelings poking through the mask she’d been wearing for decades. Eventually, Francis breaks a beer bottle and stabs her son in the belly. The shock and pain of that act has a brutal effect on both mother and son. Penguin gets a surge of adrenaline and is able to break out of his bonds and escape with his mother. Francis, however, after seeing a hallucination of Jack and Benny (both dripping wet), suffers a debilitating stroke. Penguin is able to escape, taking out one of Sofia’s thugs with a punch, then using said thug’s gun to lay down cover fire to get out of Monroe’s. Outside, he shoots Detective Wise (who’s too busy getting high on drops to be paying attention) in the head and takes his car. And now the maneuvering begins, because Sofia still wants revenge on Penguin and Penguin still wants to be the big bad boss—which is gonna be hard with his entire Bliss operation having been blown to smithereens by Sofia last week. What’s thrilling about this finale is that you find yourself rooting for Penguin because it’s his show and because Farrell is playing him with such incredible charisma, and then it catches in your throat, as it were. His constant harping on the plight of the less well-off rings very true and makes him sympathetic, but then the script takes the time to remind us what a spectacular piece of shit he is. He murdered his brothers and still denies that he was even in the same place as them decades later. Plus all the murders and drug-dealing and other fun stuff… Vic gets to shine in this finale, too: when he arrives at Crown Point with all the various crime bosses (the army Penguin asked him to gather last time), it’s too late to help. There are cops all around, and Penguin’s probably dead. Vic tries to convince them to help, as Penguin helped them, and they’re all supposed to be partners, but his pleas fall on deaf ears. Well, all but two deaf ears. Link, Zhao’s second in command, does hear Vic’s words, but he plays it close to the vest, waiting for the right moment. For Sofia’s part, she wants out. Her epiphany last week has taken effect, and she wants to leave Gotham. She’ll give her resources and territories to whichever gang leader brings her the head of Oswald Cobb. Meanwhile, Penguin goes to City Hall, and I was kicking myself watching this scene, because I should’ve seen it coming. Penguin’s shtick since 1941 has always been that he’s a planner and he’s often the smartest guy in the room. I should have guessed that he’d be able to turn the mess Sofia made of Crown Point to his advantage. He meets with Councilman Cady (the politician he intimidated into getting power back to Crown Point in “Gold Summit”), and tells him that the explosion was the latest salvo in a gang war between Sofia and Maroni. The proof: the center of the explosion will show the remains of Sofia’s car and Maroni’s body is down there, too. This is Cady’s chance to get in good with the incoming law-and-order-focused Mayor Réal. Penguin goes outside to see Link and some of the Triads, seemingly taking him to Sofia for Zhao. But Vic’s words—which mirrored what Penguin’s been saying for eight episodes—affected, not just Link, but all the deputies, who all move to take out their bosses. Penguin has his army of second bananas, who all are getting their shot at being at the head of the table instead of begging for scraps in the kitchen. Sofia meets Zhao at the airport, ready to fly away from Gotham and all this after killing Penguin. But then Link shoots Zhao and it all goes to shit for her. Penguin then drives her (“Just like old times, huh?”) to a spot just under the bridge. He has her turn around, and she thinks she’s about to be shot in the back. This whole thing is beautifully shot and acted and framed and set up. Milioti and director Jennifer Getzinger show the resignation on Sofia’s face, as she knows she’s going to die and that it’s all over. When Penguin tells her she’s going to hell, she replies, “I’ll save you a seat.” But then a helicopter spotlight hits her in the face and she hears sirens. Turning around, Penguin is long gone, but GCPD is there to arrest her. When Penguin said she was going to hell, he wasn’t talking about the mythical place where damned souls go after they die. He was talking about Arkham. Rush winds up back working at Arkham, er, somehow, and has contrived to be one of her caretakers. He brings her some mail, including a letter from a woman named Selina Kyle, who claims to be her half-sister. Reading the letter, Sofia, for the first time in a long time, smiles. And it’s a genuinely happy smile as opposed to the evil cat-about-to-eat-a-mouse smile we usually get from her. It’s a nice little continuity moment, these two women whose lives were so totally screwed up by Carmine Falcone bonding over long-distance. Penguin then sits with Vic, and they share a happy drink. Vic is very grateful to Penguin for giving him a shot, giving him a new family. But Vic has seen Penguin at his most vulnerable, and he can’t allow that to stand, not if he’s going to be a big boss now. So he chokes Vic to death, takes the money out of his wallet (to make it look like a robbery gone bad) and tosses his driver’s license into the river (to make it take longer to ID him). In an episode full of great performances, we should not lose track of Rhenzy Feliz, who shows us Vic’s earnest pleading with the gang leaders, his devotion and loyalty and gratitude for Penguin, and his breathless expressions of shock as that devotion is repaid with cold-blooded murder. Credit: Macall Polay/HBO Francis was right. Her son is a monster. And this reminds us. In the end, Penguin gets what he wants, but it’s bittersweet. Francis is catatonic now, completely unresponsive. Penguin gets the penthouse apartment “with a view of the whole friggin’ city” that he promised Francis as a kid back during that fateful night at Monroe’s. Her bed is set up so she has that view all the time as she sits in her vegetative state. In this final scene (which starts with Penguin parking a new purple—ahem, “plum”—car), our title character is wearing a tuxedo, looking more and more like the comic book character, as he goes up to check on his mother. Then he dances with Eve, who is wearing the exact same black dress that Francis wore to Monroe’s all those years ago, which isn’t at all creepy, and asks her to say the two things that Francis has never once said out loud to her son in any of the eight episodes: She loves him. She’s proud of him. He’s on top of the world. He’s the biggest crime boss in Gotham, and nobody can stand in his way. Right after that, we cut to an outside shot, with the bat-signal shining in the night sky to remind us that somebody will stand in his way. It’s—um, not entirely convincing that all the stuff that’s gone down over these episodes has done so without any involvement of Bruce Wayne’s chiropteran alter ego. Sofia’s little bomb explosion (if nothing else) should’ve gotten the Bat’s attention. That last shot, at least, promises that the next movie will pick up where this leaves off. The title of this finale comes from an Oscar Wilde poem, “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” (which, according to the “Inside Gotham” after-show, Farrell gave a copy of to show-runner Lauren LeFranc, who was apparently never told by Farrell or anyone else that “gaol” is pronounced the same as “jail”). Wilde wrote that poem about his experience in the prison at Reading, where he served two years’ hard labor after being found guilty of indecency. The specific sequence is about another prisoner about whom Wilde initially knows nothing specific, and he “was wondering if the man had done / A great or little thing.” The prisoner in question was a murderer, specifically Charles Thomas Wooldridge, who slit his wife’s throat. And who was in the same prison as Wilde, who was guilty of (checks notes) having sex with men. Throughout this series, both Penguin and Sofia have done great and little things. It has gotten Penguin at the place he said he wanted to be, but without his mother or his best friend, both of whom he betrayed (though he’d never admit it in either case). It has gotten Sofia in her personal hell of Arkham, with only a hilariously unethical shrink on her side. (Theo Rossi has played Rush as a pure toady, completely obsessed with Sofia to the point of absurdity, the Harley Quinn to Sofia’s Joker.) This has been a helluva ride, a superlative study of deeply damaged people, a colloquy on how those with money and power treat the people under them, and a brilliant examination of the damage that family can do—both the active damage of bad family and the more passive damage of the loss of good family. Farrell, Milioti, Feliz, and O’Connell give the performances of a lifetime here, and LeFranc and her team deserve a ton of credit for a gripping, fascinating series. In particular, it does what adaptations do best: give us a new look at an old story. This is a different interpretation of an eighty-three-year-old character, but still one that is true to his roots from that 1941 story that introduced him: a strange-looking little man who is nonetheless cleverer than most of the people around him, and who uses that cleverness to advance himself in the criminal world. I doubt there’ll be a season two—this feels very much like a standalone transition piece between the two Matt Reeves-directed films starring Robert Pattinson—but these eight episodes are an excellent bit of additional storytelling in this latest interpretation of Gotham City.[end-mark] The post “Just once, tell me you’re proud of me!” — <i>The Penguin</i>’s “A Great or Little Thing” appeared first on Reactor.

During his reign, Genghis Khan ran one of the most feared empires. He wouldn't have been able to conquer huge regions of central Asia and China, the Middle East, and Europe without his warriors. The men who did his bidding became master archers and kept vast secrets for their leader. Keep reading because there are some interesting facts and details about Genghis Khan's warriors. Genghis Khan' Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The controversy surrounding the Texas social media law, initially signed in 2021, continues to unfold as it returns to the lower courts for further examination. This legislation, known as H.B. 20, compels platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to not only publish regular reports detailing removed content but also to establish a system for complaints and reveal their methods for moderating content. Ostensibly, the law aims to prevent these companies from banning users based on political opinions. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. The case was escalated to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit following a decision by the Supreme Court, which refrained from making a definitive judgment on the law’s constitutionality concerning similar statutes in Texas and Florida. Instead, the Supreme Court directed the lower courts to resolve the First Amendment issues presented, leading the Fifth Circuit to delegate the Texas case back to the Western District of Texas for a thorough reevaluation. NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, plaintiffs in the case, have argued that H.B. 20 infringes on the First Amendment rights of social media platforms. This Texas law, enacted in 2021, mandates platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to generate regular reports on removed content, establish a complaint system, and disclose their content regulation procedures. Its primary aim is to prevent social media companies from banning users based on political viewpoints. Authored by Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham, the opinion from the Fifth Circuit instructs the district court to identify the full scope of activities and actors covered by H.B. 20, a task that will require a detailed understanding of each platform’s content moderation practices. Judge Oldham’s opinion highlights the necessity of this exploration, countering Texas’s argument against the need for such in-depth inquiry by emphasizing that understanding the specific burdens on websites is crucial to determining if they face undue restrictions on their expressive activities. “Who is covered by Texas House Bill 20 (‘H.B. 20’)?” the order asks. “For these actors, which activities are covered by H.B. 20? For these covered activities, how do the covered actors moderate content?” “The Court stated that H.B. 20, ‘at least on [its] face, appear[s] to apply beyond Facebook’s News Feed and its ilk.'” The order also stated that “To determine if any given application of H.B. 20’s ‘content-moderation provisions’ is unconstitutional, the district court must determine ‘whether there is an intrusion on protected editorial discretion.'” In the appellate court, Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham’s ruling underscored the necessity for the district court to clarify the scope of H.B. 20, specifying which entities and activities fall under its purview. Oldham’s instructions came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s assessment that the case was inadequately developed, posing numerous fact-intensive questions needing resolution. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Texas Social Media Free Speech Law Faces New Scrutiny in First Amendment Fight appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. What happens when an agency meant to protect Americans from foreign propaganda starts tiptoeing over the line into the realm of domestic censorship? Enter the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a charming creation of the US State Department that was originally tasked with combating foreign disinformation. It sounds like something out of a spy novel: shadowy entities sowing chaos through whisper campaigns and disinformation dumps. But now, the real drama lies in how this agency has extended its reach beyond foreign threats and into the murky waters of the internet’s free speech landscape. Of course, the GEC would prefer to be seen as a benevolent referee, helping social media giants like Facebook and YouTube play the good guys in the battle against digital deception. In theory, this agency is all about countering Russian bots and Iranian trolls. But somehow, along the way, its mission stretched to a point where the average American scrolling through a feed can almost feel the government’s fingers tapping on their shoulder, cautioning them about what’s “trustworthy.” It’s no wonder people are starting to worry. “Protecting” Free Speech with Blacklists and Bans Let’s break down how the GEC manages to defend democracy in ways that look suspiciously undemocratic. The agency works directly with social media platforms, advising them on what narratives might be feeding the foreign propaganda machine. Sounds reasonable—until it doesn’t. The GEC has dipped into its federal piggy bank to fund initiatives creating online blacklists and flagging content for removal. Some say it’s about “maintaining integrity” online; others say it looks a lot like censorship on the taxpayer’s dime. To critics, this looks like the first few moves of a chess game where the GEC is lining up for a checkmate on free expression. And they’re not alone. Skeptics of the GEC’s approach argue that these actions open the door to a sanitized internet, where only approved opinions make the cut. Who gets to decide what’s misleading or manipulative? Turns out, it’s not entirely clear, and this vagueness is what has civil liberties watchdogs gnashing their teeth. Paul Nakasone: Former Spy, Current AI Board Member, and GEC’s Biggest Fan Amid the ruckus, the GEC does have a few high-profile cheerleaders. One of them is none other than Paul Nakasone, a former NSA Director who now sits on the board of OpenAI. He’s come out swinging in favor of the GEC, showering praise on its efforts to shield American audiences from outside influence. For someone who once helmed the NSA, Nakasone knows a thing or two about surveillance, and his endorsement feels like a tacit nod from the intelligence community itself. But even as he applauds the GEC, some are asking the obvious question: why is a former NSA chief, now positioned at the bleeding edge of AI technology, so invested in this government office’s future? Could it be that he sees a future where government-sponsored “truth” filters bleed into the algorithmic architecture of social media platforms? The GEC’s methods may have started with a noble purpose, but Nakasone’s involvement shines a light on the agency’s proximity to power and influence, making many wonder if the GEC is merely a cudgel for elites to enforce their narrative. Bipartisan Endorsement: The Ultimate Shield Then there’s the bipartisan protection the GEC enjoys, courtesy of Senators John Cornyn and Chris Murphy, the Republican-Democrat duo that co-parented the agency into existence back in 2016. In the world of American politics, finding anything both sides agree on is as rare as a unicorn, so when they do align, it’s usually worth a closer look. Cornyn and Murphy are now pushing for the GEC’s reauthorization, hoping to give it another seven-year lease on life. Their logic? Keep the GEC’s scope foreign-focused and off-limits when it comes to domestic politics. The proposal includes a “strict ban” on US political meddling and tighter financial oversight—measures meant to steer the GEC back toward its original, “noble” mission. Yet, those promises don’t seem to be allaying fears. After all, what constitutes meddling, exactly? And how far does “foreign-focused” go on the internet where “foreign” is about as easy to define as air? If there’s one thing Washington excels at, it’s drawing the line right where it’s convenient, then redrawing it when no one’s looking. The GEC’s Real Legacy: Democracy or Control? At its core, the GEC’s story isn’t one of pure villainy or virtue; it’s the all-too-common tale of mission creep. Born to protect, it evolved into a protector so zealous it could become the very thing it claimed to fight. In a landscape where free speech is already under constant siege, the GEC’s growth raises the age-old question: who watches the watchers? So, here we stand, with two powerful senators asking us to trust that the GEC’s next seven years won’t resemble the questionable track record of the last. Whether you see this as a necessary shield or a potential weapon against dissent, one thing is clear—the GEC’s presence in the digital ecosystem is likely to remain contentious, polarizing, and above all, inescapably tangled in the web of modern-day propaganda wars. The Global Engagement Center, with its sleek mission of unmasking foreign propaganda, has certainly racked up its share of victories abroad, unearthing disinformation from the usual suspects—Russia, China, and other state-sponsored actors. But back home, it’s a different story. While the GEC might like to see itself as an indispensable line of defense, a growing number of Americans see it as something altogether more insidious: a tool for quashing dissent under the shiny guise of “security.” The backlash isn’t just coming from the fringes; it’s led by Republican lawmakers who accuse the GEC of overstepping its mandate, straying from a mission to combat foreign influence and dabbling instead in something far more contentious: influencing American political discourse. Conservatives argue that the GEC has a cozy relationship with major social media platforms, where it’s allegedly advising them to tag and downrank content from right-leaning sources, all under the sanctified banner of “disinformation.” In a country already primed to erupt over issues of free speech, it’s an explosive allegation that’s landed the GEC in the crosshairs of national outrage. The Conservative Media Strikes Back Fed up and ready to push back, some of the biggest conservative media names have banded together with the state of Texas to launch a lawsuit against the Department of State. Platforms like The Daily Wire and The Federalist are taking aim at what they claim is a calculated attempt by the GEC to label their content as “disinformation,” a charge they argue has made them radioactive for advertisers and throttled their visibility on social media. Their argument is simple but searing: a federal agency is directly infringing on the First Amendment by blocking or burying conservative viewpoints in the very same channels it was established to keep open. This accusation has given conservatives a rallying cry, a David-vs-Goliath scenario where state-backed censors go after political speech under the flimsiest pretexts. Leading the legal crusade is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s never one to mince words. Paxton has openly accused the GEC of being on a crusade of its own—one aimed not at safeguarding democracy, but at suffocating it. In Paxton’s view, the GEC has gone rogue, turning from a shield against foreign interference to a battering ram against American freedoms. Enter Congress: The Great Reassessment The uproar has made its way to Capitol Hill, where figures like Rep. Darrell Issa are pounding the drum for a major reassessment of the GEC’s practices. Issa, along with a cadre of similarly concerned lawmakers, has raised the alarm about how far the GEC’s operations have expanded. It’s one thing to combat the well-oiled disinformation machines of Moscow or Beijing. But it’s something else entirely to be monitoring, blacklisting, and deplatforming opinions within US borders under the same disinformation protocols. For Issa, this isn’t just mission creep; it’s an outright defiance of the GEC’s mandate. The agency, he contends, has blurred the line between legitimate counter-disinformation efforts and outright censorship, especially when that censorship just so happens to lean in one political direction. Issa and others argue that under the pretext of fighting foreign influence, the GEC is developing an appetite for policing thought—a role Congress never intended it to fill. Reform or Dismantle: The Fight Over the GEC’s Future And now, Washington is embroiled in a growing debate over what to do with the GEC. On one side are those who argue that the center just needs a tighter leash, and a few accountability measures to ensure it sticks to foreign threats and foreign threats only. On the other side are those who say the GEC’s existence is a danger to American principles — perhaps a well-intentioned experiment gone horribly wrong. They’re pushing for its complete dismantling, arguing that no amount of reform can protect an agency with such sweeping power from abusing it. In an ironic twist, the very tools created to protect democracy now stand accused of eroding it, launching a bitter tug-of-war over the American ideal of free speech versus the unquantifiable need to “protect” citizens from supposedly dangerous ideas. Are we safer for it? Or are we on a slow slide into a digital age where the government, deciding what counts as legitimate speech, becomes the very propagandist it claims to fight? At the least, the GEC seems to have lost its way, now accused of extending its mission to target domestic media—particularly conservative voices. Its partnerships with organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have turned into a flashpoint for accusations of bias, with critics arguing that these alliances are driving the GEC’s work right into partisan territory. The GDI, a non-profit that presents itself as an impartial watchdog against misinformation, has its own critics, many of whom argue that its “disinformation” classifications are less about protecting the public and more about ensuring the “right” voices dominate the information landscape. Conservative media outlets have consistently found themselves on the wrong end of these classifications, flagged as threats to the sanctity of truth while more progressive-leaning sources, somehow, skate by. This raises questions about how these ostensibly neutral organizations are choosing their targets and how much influence the government-backed GEC has on these classifications. An Ethical Tug-of-War: Security, Truth, or Free Speech? As the debate heats up over the GEC’s impending renewal, we’re not just talking about a procedural rubber stamp. The reauthorization of the GEC is emerging as a proxy battle over far deeper questions: What role should the government play in policing information? And where is the line between safeguarding the public and controlling it? On one hand, there’s the argument that a body like the GEC is essential for a world where foreign states meddle with domestic politics through armies of bots and fake accounts. Without it, we’re told, Americans would be defenseless against the unrelenting tidal wave of foreign-sponsored fake news designed to sow chaos and division. Yet, that same narrative has an underbelly—a creeping encroachment on civil liberties, a kind of censorship wearing the costume of patriotism, where political biases steer the GEC’s focus. Congress at a Crossroads: To Renew, Reform, or Repeal? Congress now faces a critical decision: Do they rubber-stamp the GEC for another seven years and trust that reforms and restrictions can keep it in check? Or is it time to dismantle a mechanism that critics argue is increasingly indistinguishable from the very disinformation campaigns it claims to fight? Senators are debating an array of reforms, from tighter financial oversight to strict prohibitions on domestic content moderation. But skeptics aren’t convinced that a few added layers of oversight will suffice; the GEC’s history suggests that mission creep may be inevitable, and with it, the erosion of free expression. If the GEC’s renewal goes through with little structural change, the implications will reverberate far beyond Washington. It could set a precedent where government-sanctioned “disinformation” monitoring becomes normalized as part of the American media landscape, allowing those in power to define and punish “disinformation” with little accountability. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Setting Precedents for a Digital Battlefield The GEC saga is a window into the heart of a much larger debate over information warfare and the role of government in a digital age. If the GEC continues to exercise its authority as both referee and player in the information space, it could pave the way for similar agencies to wield censorship as an arm of policy. We might soon find ourselves living in a digital landscape where what’s considered “misinformation” conveniently aligns with what’s politically inconvenient for those in power. Ultimately, the GEC’s future will set the tone for how the US balances national security with its commitment to free speech. As the Senate weighs its options, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This decision will define the boundaries of governmental influence over the public’s access to information, shaping the next chapter of American engagement in the digital world. The choice to renew, reform, or repeal the GEC is no small moment—it’s a defining one, with repercussions for every American’s right to think, speak, and decide for themselves what is truth and what is manipulation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Too Fun to Check: Biden Internal Polling Had Trump Winning 400 Electoral College Votes?

Don’t be fooled — this is planet Earth, not Mars.