'You should have Trump Derangement Syndrome'

The Chilean Sea Bass name is not a fin-ality

'My mother was butchered by my sister under his advisement'

News The Legend of Vox Machina Amazon Bequeaths The Legend of Vox Machina a Fourth Season Big plans to level up the heroes – and villains – of the series are underway By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on October 23, 2024 Credit: Prime Video Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Prime Video Just one day before the Season Three finale of Legend of Vox Machina, Amazon MGM Studios officially gave the show (and us) the promise of additional episodes on Prime Video. “The fantastic team at Critical Role and Titmouse continues to deliver captivating seasons of The Legend of Vox Machina and we are excited for more to come,” Melissa Wolfe, head of animation, Amazon MGM Studios, said in a statement. “Our global Prime Video audience has embraced this series from the beginning and the fans, along with us, remain passionate about the characters and stories.” “We are beyond thrilled—and grateful—to continue the epic and wild adventures of Vex, Vax, Keyleth, Percy, Pike, Grog and everyone’s favorite character—Scanlan,” executive producer Sam Riegel (who also voices Scanlan) said in the same statement. “With each season, this show levels up, and we already have big plans to level up both our heroes and villains in Season Four.” The cast broke the news via a short video. “Please come back and watch us,” Riegel says in the clip. “And watch Seasons One through Three again now to psych yourself up. Why not?” The Season Three finale drops on Prime Video tomorrow, October 24, 2024. No news yet on when Season Four will make its way to the streaming platform. In the meantime, check out the clip of the cast breaking the news below. [end-mark] The post Amazon Bequeaths <i>The Legend of Vox Machina</i> a Fourth Season appeared first on Reactor.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ claim that she “will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive” is the climate-policy equivalent of President Barack Obama’s famous lie about the Affordable Care Act: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But while Obama at least managed to get a law passed, the Biden-Harris administration has tried to transform the automotive industry without even persuading Congress. To be sure, while serving in the U.S. Senate in 2019, Harris enthusiastically co-sponsored legislation mandating that all new car sales be electric by 2040. But as vice president, she has given up on lawmaking and opted instead to pursue a “whole of government” effort that relies on a series of interlocking agency rulemakings. The Environmental Protection Agency and Harris’ home state of California are at the heart of this effort. For its part, the EPA’s new nationwide vehicle rules reverse-engineer an electric vehicle mandate by setting standards so stringent that no conventional vehicles—even hybrids—can meet them. As those standards ramp up, the only way automakers can comply is to make and sell more plug-in battery vehicles or to buy regulatory “credits” from competitors that do. EPA projects automakers will need to make 68% of their new vehicles battery models by model year 2032—roughly seven years from now. That, of course, means that automakers must also rapidly phase out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks. At the same time, climate bureaucrats in California are not only banning conventional vehicles within the decade, but have also imposed new purchase mandates. The so-called Advanced Clean Fleet rules require truck drivers to replace their diesel trucks with vastly inferior (and much more expensive) electric models starting in January. And the Biden-Harris EPA is poised to give its blessing to California’s electrification programs—just as soon as the election is over. The costs of these electric vehicle mandates fall on ordinary consumers, even those who don’t buy electric vehicles. Automakers lose tens of thousands of dollars per electric vehicle they sell, and they have to offset those losses by jacking up the price of conventional vehicles—a phenomenon economists call a “regulatory cross-subsidy,” or “the government’s hidden pocketbook.” Cross-Subsidies_ Governments Hidden PocketbookDownload The push to electrify trucking is even more unhinged. Electric trucks are very expensive to buy and have terrible payload capacity and range. That’s why the much vaunted Tesla Semi is used for little more than hauling Cheetos bags, which are apparently more than half filled with air. Almost everything anyone buys gets shipped on a truck at some point, and the shipping industry will have no choice but to pass these enormous costs downstream. Look forward to tighter supply chains and higher prices for everything from auto parts to household items to medical supplies and other critical items that rely heavily on truck transportation. If you thought grocery prices were bad now, just wait. This will hit working-class Americans twice over, increasing costs on those already struggling to make ends meet while simultaneously lowering the demand for American labor. Electric vehicles require about 40% less labor than traditional cars, not because of productivity gains, but because the batteries are manufactured elsewhere—typically by entities controlled by China, which dominates the battery supply chain end to end. What does the vice president hope to get from sacrificing our national security and the interests of poor Americans in this way? According to her bean counters at the EPA, not much. State electric vehicle mandates will lead “to little to no change” in greenhouse-gas “emissions at a national level,” and will thus “result in an indistinguishable?change in global temperatures.”  EPA’s federal standards similarly will have at most a rounding-error’s worth of climate benefits.   As Americans are starting to realize, the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandates are all pain and no gain. No wonder she’s trying to gaslight us as Election Day approaches. Indeed, Harris made her disingenuous claim that she “will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive” in the swing state of Michigan. But while Harris’ desire to run from her record is understandable, it’s just not credible. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris said just a few days later on TV’s “The View” when asked if there was anything she would have handled differently from President Joe Biden. Whether “the future is electric”—and thus at odds with American consumers and workers—depends therefore in no small part on what happens in the next two weeks. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Harris Shifts Her EV Mandates Into Reverse—Until After the Election appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris keeps slipping in presidential Electoral College tallies against her rival, former President Donald Trump, in large part due to her poor management of America’s nearly $29 trillion economy. Under her incompetent leadership in the Biden-Harris administration, voters on Nov. 5 will send her packing—in no small part thanks to failed economic policies. Voters consistently rank the economy as their top issue, including among a majority of voters in Gallup’s most recent survey. Harris fails to distance Kamalanomics from failed Bidenomics—because there’s no daylight between them. Harris boasts she cast the tiebreaking votes for the American Rescue Plan Act and the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act. Economists note these bills were key drivers of painful, 40-year-record high inflation under Biden-Harris.  Overall, prices are up 20.5%: Electricity, up 31.3%, rent, up 22.9%, and groceries, up 22.1%, since Harris took office in January 2021. Under President Joe Biden and Harris, monthly inflation averaged 5.2%—almost three times the average inflation rate on Trump’s watch. That disproportionately harms low-income and middle-class families, as well as nonwhite households. Less-wealthy homes spend more of their family budget on consumer staples with skyrocketing prices. Under Harris, gas prices averaged $3.49 a gallon, while under Trump, gas prices averaged just $2.48 a gallon. That’s due in part to the Biden-Harris assault on domestic energy producers and irrational exuberance for electric vehicle mandates. Americans built up savings during the pandemic but have had to spend it down because of inflation just to stay afloat. In Harris’ first three years, the personal savings rate fell from 19.3% in 2021 to 2.9% in 2024—a plunge of 85%. In Trump’s first three years, the personal savings rate rose from 5.3% in 2017 to 19.3% in 2021—a 264% increase. That means Americans were far better prepared to handle an emergency under Trump then under Harris. It was hard to narrow it down to just 10… pic.twitter.com/rdoTNcFJ31— House Budget GOP (@housebudgetGOP) March 11, 2024 Under Harris, who claims to care about homeownership, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate increased by 120% between 2021 and 2024. Under Trump, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate decreased by 32% between 2017 and 2021.  Harris’ failed housing proposal is a $25,000 cash giveaway to first-time homebuyers. Just as with student loans, these types of distortionary subsidies will only serve to drive home prices higher. Under Harris, whose administration has aggressively targeted lenders, credit card delinquency skyrocketed by 54% between 2020 and 2024. Under Trump, credit card delinquency fell by 11% between 2016 and 2020.  So much for Harris’ false claims that her administration’s agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission are effective at supporting American families and consumers. Harris’ inflationary policies sent prices soaring in the first place—and she’d double down if she’s elected in November with the largest tax hike in history and a Soviet-style price control scheme.  "If anything, would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?"KAMALA: "There is not a thing that comes to mind."??? pic.twitter.com/kvS3zkMc4p— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 8, 2024 In Trump’s first three years, Americans saw a 10.5% boost ($7,690) in median household income—seven times larger than the 1.3% increase ($1,050) in median household income in Harris’ first three years. But that increase under Harris is ravaged by inflation. The Committee to Unleash Prosperity noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics “released its final preelection Weekly Earnings report through the third quarter of 2024. Wages are finally starting to creep up faster than inflation. That’s the good news. The bad news is that over the Biden presidency, earnings are still about 1.3% BELOW inflation. It provides further evidence that wage growth under Biden hasn’t kept up with inflation, resulting in a 1.3% loss in real earnings.” This means Americans are effectively continuing to suffer a pay cut under Bidenomics and Kamalanomics. Meanwhile, under President Trump, real average weekly earnings increased 8.2%. Harris’ economic record is failed, weak, and dangerously liberal, and all she is offering is four more years of the disastrous Harris-Biden administration. It’s time to bid adieu to Kamalanomics forever. Carrie Sheffield is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Harris Campaign Craters as Voters Grow More Dissatisfied With Kamalanomics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The New York Times has found another way, and another reason, to launch an attack against online encryption. With the US presidential vote around the corner, it is tied to “disinformation” – in particular, how the perceived danger from it is affecting Latino voting rights activists (apparently badly –  NYT says the problem of “disinformation” is something that “keeps them up at night.”) After going through a litany of complaints about what the newspaper sees as “disinformation” targeting specifically Latino voters, the article comes to secure encryption, why NYT thinks it’s bad, and what to do about it. The last couple of years (and US election cycles) have produced a new crop of “experts” – those supposedly best equipped to deal with “disinformation.” In the piece, NYT takes their expertise for granted, and uses them to explain one of the reasons “disinformation” allegedly cannot be dealt with properly, or, at least, to NYT’s satisfaction. And it’s encrypted apps standing in the way of these experts to – spy on people’s personal communications, all the while referring to the spying as a “transparency” problem. According to NYT “a lot of disinformation” can be found on encrypted messaging apps, which are misleadingly referred to as “closed” – a word that has a very different, and negative, connotation in the software world. Here, the apps are simply “closed” to surveillance of private communications, meaning that “disinformation experts” can’t just have access to that data at will. Apparently one such expert – head of Information Futures Lab at Brown University’s School of Public Health Stefanie Friedhoff – sees another problem, which is that social media companies also “do not tend” to hand over data to this type of researchers, which would show “what is spreading.” In other words, what needs to be suppressed, once it has been branded as “disinformation.” And, experience shows that can be a lot of things, including content that is factually correct. The whole article is very clear on where its political preferences lie – namely, with the current White House, and the “war on encryption” is well-aligned and for a long time a part of that general political bias. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NY Times Criticizes Encryption, Citing “Disinformation Experts” Struggling to Access Private Messages appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Following a visit from Australia’s federal law enforcement to an employee’s home, Session, the encrypted messaging app known for its robust privacy features, has decided to relocate its operations from Australia to Switzerland. This move highlights the increasing dilemmas faced by encrypted app providers amid growing governmental demands for user data. Session’s escalation in popularity has come with heightened scrutiny, culminating in a direct approach by law enforcement that led to its decision to operate under Switzerland’s more privacy-conducive regulations. Alex Linton, president of the newly established Session Technology Foundation (STF) which oversees the app, emphasized that this shift was crucial for maintaining the app’s core privacy principles. Despite the geographic move, Session will continue to be accessible to users in Australia. According to a report by 404 Media, Last year, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) unexpectedly approached a Session employee at their residence, bypassing more formal communication channels. Linton described the encounter, noting the lack of a warrant and the informality of the visit. The AFP’s inquiries centered around the app and its development, as well as an ongoing investigation linked to a Session user. This incident, Linton revealed, prompted Session’s legal team to correspond formally with the AFP to address the situation. Linton provided further insight into subsequent interactions with the AFP, which involved more detailed inquiries into the technical aspects and future plans for Session. The AFP, while acknowledging their familiarity with the app, refrained from commenting on this specific incident. In a backdrop where encrypted services like Telegram have faced similar pressures, with their CEO Pavel Durov being detained by French authorities, Session’s pivot towards a safer haven for privacy reflects a broader trend among tech companies seeking to protect user confidentiality against increasing legislative pressures. Notably, Australia’s recent surveillance laws, which now require data collection by service providers, played a significant role in Session’s decision. The laws mandate the collection of personal identifiers like phone numbers or emails, a requirement that disproportionately impacts smaller or niche services. Nearly six years post-enactment of Australia’s controversial anti-encryption laws, the tech industry reports significant negative impacts. The Assistance and Access Act 2018 aimed to allow authorities better access to encrypted communications, justifying it as necessary for combating terrorism and other crimes. However, the tech community, including companies like Atlassian, argues these laws have tarnished Australia’s tech reputation, and deterred skilled IT professionals. These laws enable the government to issue technical capability notices, forcing companies to create backdoors in encryption, raising fears among global customers and partners about compromised security and privacy. The backlash is reflected in criticisms from tech leaders and concerns over government overreach, likening the situation to regulatory issues faced in other nations, which have resulted in similar detrimental effects on local industries and privacy standards. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Session’s Escape Plan: How a Visit From Police Pushed It To Leave the Country appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Best Guess: Gwen Walz Reportedly in Full-Blown Snit After Being Told She's ______________ ?

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel recently joined MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough for an interview that aired on the Wednesday edition of Morning Joe. Throughout the two-part interview, Scarborough and Kimmel would discuss the latter’s career and their mutual loathing of Donald Trump, with Kimmel going so far as to say, “If you're a reasonable person, you should have Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Scarborough portrayed Kimmel as the comedian who only reluctantly got political, “So, you started this show, and then Trump happened. And we all manned the stations. Kind of the same thing with you. Where you didn't want to get political.     After a clip of Kimmel’s October 15 monologue, Scarborough continued, “But you felt a necessity to, especially, because of your son. Can you talk about that?” Kimmel replied, “Yeah, I mean, I think that was more related to mainstream Republicanism and this idea that, I don't know, that it's not okay to have socialized health care, but it's fine to have socialized education.” Scarborough likes to portray himself as the principled conservative and claim it is today’s Republicans that have gone wrong, but Kimmel is right: his critique of GOP health care plans is not really a critique of Trump. However, Scarborough was not interested in challenging that. Instead, MSNBC played a clip of Kimmel from May 1, 2017, where Kimmel declared, “If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make, I think that's something that whether you're a Republican or Democrat or something else. We all agree on that, right, we do?” Back in the present day, Kimmel elaborated: None of it really makes sense, and it just so happened my son had open heart surgery, I was just looking at these families and thinking, it's hard enough just to take off from work to come be here all day, make sure somebody is here with your kid, the medical expenses, and then I started taking interest in it. It just so happens, I'm sitting in a children's hospital funded largely by donations, but also by the government, and I feel like I need to make something positive about this very scary thing that happened to our family.” No one seeks to minimize the horrible situation the Kimmel family found itself in, but Kimmel is not the only father to go through such a situation. Being opposed to socialized health care is not the same thing as being indifferent to babies dying. In part two of their interview, Kimmel contemplated a Trump victory: I'm an optimistic person, I'm not hysterical, I laugh when people say, 'Oh, you've got Trump Derangement Syndrome.' If you're a reasonable person, you should have Trump Derangement Syndrome, and by the way, I think he has derangement syndrome about us, too. The fact of the matter is, this is a dangerous person, this is a stupid person, and that's a bad combination.     A little bit later, Scarborough wondered, “What do you think, though, is happening in the country? Where you have two weeks out, and it's one thing to just look at Donald Trump and look at some, you know, senators, but we're actually talking about 70, 75, 80 million people.” Kimmel mourned, “I think that there are certain news networks, if you want to call them that, who are lying to people. I think that there's a certain generation, of which we are a part, who are used to watching television and seeing the white man in a suit telling us what's going on in the world and believing that what he's saying is true.” Reaching for a rather strange role model, Kimmel continued, “We grew up with Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings and we did not question that what they were telling us was factual, and a lot of people now are looking at Sean Hannity and whomever else, and they are not questioning whether or not what they're saying is factual.” Dan Rather and CBS’s scandalous history of fake news aside, Kimmel himself does not always put a high premium on accuracy. He’s attacked those “certain news networks” for putting Trump in context, he mocks alleged red state book bans by citing books blue school districts find problematic, and he brings his wife and writer on to say pro-life laws are killing women. Here is a transcript for the October 23 show: MSNBC Morning Joe 10/23/2024 8:39 AM ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: So, you started this show, and then Trump happened. And we all manned the stations. Kind of the same thing with you. Where you didn't want to get political. JIMMY KIMMEL [10/15/24]: Many are now seriously questioning whether Trump is healthy enough to be running for president, so what does he do? Well, he does what he always does. He questions whether his opponent is healthy enough to be running for president, Dr. Dolittle Hands was up attacking Kamala's medical records. SCARBOROUGH: But you felt a necessity to, especially, because of your son. Can you talk about that? KIMMEL: Yeah, I mean, I think that was more related to mainstream Republicanism and this idea that, I don't know, that it's not okay to have socialized health care, but it's fine to have socialized education.  KIMMEL [5/1/17]: If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make, I think that's something that whether you're a Republican or Democrat or something else. We all agree on that, right, we do? KIMMEL: None of it really makes sense, and it just so happened my son had open heart surgery, I was just looking at these families and thinking, it's hard enough just to take off from work to come be here all day, make sure somebody is here with your kid, the medical expenses, and then I started taking interest in it. It just so happens, I'm sitting in a children's hospital funded largely by donations, but also by the government, and I feel like I need to make something positive about this very scary thing that happened to our family. … KIMMEL: I'm an optimistic person, I'm not hysterical, I laugh when people say, “oh, you've got Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  If you're a reasonable person, you should have Trump Derangement Syndrome, and by the way, I think he has derangement syndrome about us, too. The fact of the matter is, this is a dangerous person, this is a stupid person, and that's a bad combination, and I think what we're forgetting, I keep forgetting it and I have to keep having to remind myself, is he's not just running for president he's running to stay out of prison and that's a pretty powerful thing, he is literally running for his freedom. SCARBOROUGH: But it seems like everybody sort of manned, for good reason, the, sort of, battle stations, whether you’re talking about democracy. You can even look in the past week where Donald Trump’s talking about arresting his political opponents. KIMMEL: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: He pressured -- tried to pressure Disney because of your jokes. KIMMEL: He believes CBS should have their license revoked. SCARBOROUGH: Because he doesn't like how they edited a 60 Minutes package. How concerned are you about what you do right now may have to change if Donald Trump is reelected? KIMMEL: Well, it won't change. I am not -- I'm concerned, certainly. I think that it would be so un-American if he were to come after people who are speaking out against him. SCARBOROUGH: What do you think, though, is happening in the country? Where you have two weeks out and it's one thing to just look at Donald Trump and look at some, you know, senators, but we're actually talking about 70, 75, 80 million people. KIMMEL: Yeah. I think we're focused on the wrong things, I think we're being focused on the wrong things. I think that there are certain news networks, if you want to call them that, who are lying to people. I think that there's a certain generation, of which we are a part, who are used to watching television and seeing the white man in a suit telling us what's going on in the world and believing that what he's saying is true.  I think that is ingrained in us as Americans. We grew up with Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings and we did not question that what they were telling us was factual, and a lot of people now are looking at Sean Hannity and whomever else, and they are not questioning whether or not what they're saying is factual and what they're hearing is untrue and I can understand why they think what they think because they're being told there's a caravan of migrants coming, and then nobody is following up at the end and saying, oh, “there was no caravan of migrants coming.”