We need a complete and total shutdown...

'We should not celebrate a broken institution'

'It would be like, sex days'

'Not coming out!'

The word “man” in song titles has inspired some of the most memorable tracks across different genres and eras, each using it to bring out unique angles on human experience. From Billy Joel’s heartfelt storytelling in Piano Man to David Bowie’s mysterious reflections in The Man Who Sold the World, every song on this list highlights a different take on what it means to be a “man.” There’s the enduring wisdom of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Simple Man, the raw force of Black Sabbath’s Iron Man, and the wanderer’s spirit in the Allman Brothers Band’s Ramblin’ Man. Each song here—from Chicago’s powerhouse The post 10 Best Songs With The Word ‘Man’ In The Title appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It seems every election cycle needs a bogeyman, and for Senator Mark Warner, that bogeyman is Russian disinformation. Fresh off Capitol Hill, Warner’s latest initiative is to investigate how major internet domain companies—yes, the middlemen who register web addresses—might play a role in spreading disinformation. The target list reads like a Who’s Who of the digital backstage: Cloudflare, GoDaddy, NameCheap, NameSilo, Newfold, and Verisign. But behind the supposedly patriotic mission to “protect democracy” lies a question worth asking: is Warner protecting discourse, or prepping a Trojan horse to squelch online dissent? We obtained a copy of Senator Warner’s letter to domain companies for you here. Warner’s strategy is unique in its ambition, not in its tactics. By moving his focus to the core of internet infrastructure—domain registrars—he’s essentially skipping over social media and diving into the plumbing of the web itself. It’s a bold move. After all, every website starts with a domain name, right? And if we control the names, we can theoretically control the whole game. Yet it’s hard not to notice that Warner’s targets aren’t purveyors of propaganda; they’re providers of services as basic to the internet as electricity is to a house. In fairness, no one denies that the Department of Justice’s findings reveal some troubling realities, if true. Fake outlets are indeed masquerading as legitimate news sources, with some impersonating heavy hitters like the Washington Post and Fox News. The Department of Justice even flagged sites mimicking official government pages in countries like France and Germany, reportedly linking these decoys back to the Russian government. But what Warner and his allies are suggesting is that if disinformation exists, the buck should stop at the domain registrars—even though they might be as in the dark as the rest of us. The implied responsibility stretches as far as anonymity in domain purchasing and the use of cryptocurrencies. An anonymous domain purchase apparently becomes a suspect act, rather than a basic right in a world where privacy increasingly feels like an endangered species. Warner’s fixation on crypto transactions and anonymous domains is a convenient bridge to legislative oversight. But should the use of cryptocurrency or private domain registrations be automatically linked to malicious intent? If so, where does that leave all the individuals, journalists, and even corporations that use these tools precisely because they offer protection against prying eyes? Are they guilty by association? Warner’s approach smacks of casting a suspicious eye on the very idea of privacy, branding it as a gateway drug to corruption and chaos. Moving Up the Stack – And Into the Gray Area The senator’s push for more “oversight” and “accountability” sounds benign until you realize it includes proposing legislative actions targeting how domains are registered. The problem with “oversight” of this kind is that it quickly turns into a game of gatekeeping. Who decides when privacy becomes a cover for nefarious intentions? And if this gatekeeping becomes normalized, what’s to stop other forms of expression from being scrutinized and ultimately stifled? Warner’s office is taking what feels like the classic Washington approach—expanding a legitimate problem to justify sweeping new powers. The fact that the domain companies have, so far, not publicly responded to Warner’s inquiries is no doubt unnerving for them. Should they acknowledge responsibility for bad actors? If they admit any level of complicity, the floodgates open to a future where the government can lean on domain providers to police any content it finds objectionable. Should they push back, they risk public backlash painted in the colors of “failing to protect democracy.” Warner isn’t backing down, making it clear that his vision of the future includes tighter controls on the “wild west” of the internet. As Warner pushes Congress toward what he calls a “balanced” stance on speech, it’s worth remembering that every new level of oversight is another precedent. If domain registrars become the first layer of censorship, where does it end? Today it’s anonymous domains and cryptic currency. Tomorrow, perhaps, it’s political dissenters and media critics, all kept in line by digital censors masquerading as infrastructure companies. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Slippery Slope to Censorship: Senator Warner’s Push to Police Web Infrastructure For Disinformation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Microsoft is busy inventing new phrases to make sure that, what the tech giant and its likes consider “inclusivity,” is properly reflected in Microsoft Word. But at least as far as words, “mother” and “father” are concerned, this inclusivity seems to, paradoxically, work by exclusion. Gone are the days when Word offered spelling and grammar checks. Now, for people who like their writing software to nudge and prod them during the writing process by suggesting “more suitable” replacements, Word has something called “Inclusivity Checker.” The repository of terms contained in the tool, that are recommended to be replaced, is only growing. A modern update takes a dim view of the expression “maternity leave” on “gender-inclusivity” grounds, and suggests that it be replaced with “birth-related leave,” “parental leave,” or “childbirth leave.” Fathers who go on paternity leave should instead be described as taking “child-bonding leave,” Microsoft thinks. All this is explained as a way to make sure that the writer is inclusive of “all genders.” Is all this really necessary? Microsoft thinks it is. According to the Free Speech Union, one of the terms writers who, for some reason, use Word are advised to replace is Postman Pat: it should be “Postal Worker Pat,” according to those behind this effort. In that case, the intent is to avoid the possibility of gender bias. The same goes for “biologically female” – a phrase best avoided, according to Microsoft. The feature is at this time not hard-coded into Word: the software is “inclusive” of both opt-ins (this seems to be the default) and opt-outs. “Problematic” words are underlined in blue and then recommended alternatives pop up. Right now, there is no auto-correct function, either. But, if critics compare this sort of thing as moving ever closer to Orwell’s dark dystopian world ruled by extreme censorship and government control – one never knows what’s around the corner. And if you don’t like it, and thought you might switch to, oh, Google Docs? Bad news: this giant also has a similar feature, introduced in 2022. Google frowns at terms such as “housewife” and “landlord” and would rather you write, “stay-at-home spouse” and, “property owner.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Microsoft’s “Inclusivity Checker” Sparks Fears of a Looming “Speech Police,” Flagging Terms Like “Mother” and “Father” for More “Gender-Neutral” Alternatives appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Although there are a number of uses for the palm juice that we made in an earlier recipe (from the queen palm berries), probably the most popular use of the liquid would be that of jelly making. Palm jelly (in my opinion) has its' own flavor. I can't go so far and say that it is an acquired taste, rather, I can't make a comparison to any other jelly to give readers an idea of the flavor, except for the fact that, like most jelly, it is sweet! But, I digress…try it for yourself using the recipe below! Palm Jelly Ingredients: 5 cups palm juice (thawed if frozen) Fresh lemon juice (from 1 lemon) 1 box fruit pectin (if you have the multi-serving container of Instant powder, 6 tablespoons equals 1 box) 5 cups sugar (I used regular sugar. No reason raw sugar can't be used, just beware that it may change the overall flavor.) ½ teaspoon of butter Directions: 1. In a large pot, combine both the palm and lemon juices, then whisk in the pectin (whisk does work better than spoon). 2. Heat the mixture to a boil. Next, add in the butter and sugar. (Again, using a whisk works the best here, to combine these ingredients.) 3. Bring mixture to a boil once again, then reduce the heat to medium high. 4. Allow to cook for 15 minutes, but do not allow the mixture to boil over. (Occasionally stir to prevent burning/sticking.) 5. Pour into prepared jelly jars and process. 6. Makes approximately 6-7 ½ pint jars. Further recipes will be provided in the future using both the jell and the juice. As a final note, once in a while a batch of jelly may not gel correctly. If this happens, you have a few options. You can either dump it all back into a pot and reheat (maybe adding a bit more pectin), or use it as a fruit sauce to put over pound cake, angel cake, ice cream…or use your imagination! Up Next: Energy Saving Tips For Spring Cleaning Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook!

Transnational Elite: We No Longer Believe Anything You Say

Ellison's Cave is not to be messed with.