Hollywood is overrun with copycats.

Remember how 1978’s “Halloween” scared the bell-bottom pants off us? Well, another studio copied that stalker formula with 1980’s “Friday the 13th.” The rest is — ka-ka-ka … ching-ching-ching — history.

Longtime liberals crossing party lines to oust an incompetent mayor and governor? if only we could import some of that common sense to the left coast.

If greed is good, then copycatting is even better.

That explains the marketing behind “Other Mommy.” Jessica Chastain stars as a mother who is targeted by an evil entity in the new horror flick. Apparently, said entity makes the actress adopt a massive, creepy smile to let us know something isn’t quite right with her.

And if you’ve seen “Smile” (2022) or “Smile 2” (2024), you know exactly the look. It’s one thing to make endless sequels. It’s another to steal the signature visual gimmick from another franchise. Maybe that’s why the studio behind “Other Mommy” hid it from critics prior to its Oct. 9 release date.

The reviews will likely be pretty scary …

‘Speech’ impediment

This should be a golden era for the Emmys. The trophy honoring the very best in TV programming has plenty to choose from, given the crush of new and existing platforms cranking out fresh product.

And while “The Sopranos” and “Breaking Bad” are long since over, there are plenty of top-flight TV shows to savor.

Yet the Emmys telecast will be moving to Prime Video starting next year. Why?

Ratings. Or the lack thereof. A telecast that used to draw 20 million viewers now scrambles to draw 7 million for a given gala.

Now, Prime Video will showcase the best of the best, in between political screeds. Why, it’s almost like the dawn of politically mouthy celebs had something to do with the ratings free fall …

Outbreak … of TDS

It wasn’t too long ago that DNC mouthpiece Jimmy Kimmel held up a T-shirt with the slogan “Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you” on his show.

Now it’s Ana Navarro’s turn.

The “View” co-host spun news of a Russian-based plague outbreak to attack President Trump. That isn’t really shocking. “The View” could turn a discussion on Chia Pets into an anti-Trump jeremiad.

Navarro went the extra mile with her TDS moment. To be fair, she really attacked Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but he is tied directly to President Trump via the nomination process.

“There’s going to be crisis, there’s going to be health emergencies. And, you know, when I think of RFK Jr. heading HHS, I just say, girl, kiss your ass goodbye!”

Should be easy enough for Navarro, considering where her head already is …

RELATED: GRAVE ‘DIGGER’: Will Tom Cruise’s $100 million eco-flop bury Warner Bros.?

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

Not ‘Messing’ around

Here’s the ultimate “man bites dog” story.

“Will & Grace” alum Debra Messing is such a dyed-in-the-wool progressive that she once threatened to doxx anyone who supported President Trump in Hollywood. The obvious context? Good luck finding work in this town, bub.

That was then, before the explosion of anti-Semitism across the globe and, sadly, within her industry.

To her genuine credit, Messing has been one of the loudest celebrity voices speaking up for the Jewish people in our post-Oct. 7 world. And she knows that the Democrat Party is shockingly hostile to her fellow Jews.

That explains her new endorsement — she is supporting the GOP’s Bruce Blakeman over Democrat incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul in New York’s gubernatorial contest.

“The decline in this city over the last four years has been so exponential and devastating. … Economically, socially, and on every level. And, obviously, we’ve lost so much business here. People are leaving the city.”

In acknowledging Messing’s support, Blakeman said the quiet part out loud.

“She is trying as hard as she can to save New York and make sure it’s safe for Jewish people to live in this community and to live in this state.”

She echoed the thoughts shared by fellow Jewish actor Michael Rapaport, who dropped his anti-Trump hysteria in recent years and now targets Big Apple Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

Longtime liberals crossing party lines to oust an incompetent mayor and governor? if only we could import some of that common sense to the left coast …

Sorkin’s status

Are you sure about that, Aaron?

Writer-director Aaron Sorkin continues the Facebook saga with “The Social Reckoning” this weekend. The film, continuing a story that began in 2010 with “The Social Network,” shreds Facebook for algorithms that hurt one and all.

He’s not necessarily wrong, but the film is actually an attack on President Trump and, more significantly, the January 6 riots.

Except it looks like audiences will be giving Sorkin his own “reckoning.” The film will be lucky to squeak past the $8 million mark this weekend.

“The Social Network” bowed with $22 million en route to a $96 million U.S. haul.

Sorkin is already eyeing a third film in the saga.

“If a good story comes along and it takes place at Facebook, sure.”

If the box office receipts are anything like the experts predict, he might have to start a GoFundMe campaign to get it off the ground. I know just the place to share it!

​January 6 riots, Prime video, Social reckoning, Anti-semitism, Debra messing, Jeff bezos, Emmy awards, Amazon, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Tv, Movies, Hollywood, Culture, Donald trump, Toto recall 

The war with Iran has exposed the value of energy abundance. When a major shipping route goes down, domestic supply and reliable infrastructure buy a country room to maneuver.

Before the conflict, roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids moved through the Strait of Hormuz. Its disruption became the largest oil-supply shock on record. The shock has been severe, but the United States entered it from a position few countries enjoy: record domestic production and a mature system of pipelines, refineries, ports, storage facilities, and export terminals.

The lesson from the Iran conflict is straightforward. Energy security requires abundant and diverse domestic supply, reliable supply chains, and infrastructure that can absorb a shock.

U.S. crude oil output is on track to set another annual record this year, according to the Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production has also reached record levels. That domestic cushion cannot insulate Americans from a global oil shock, but it can keep a bad situation from becoming worse.

The crisis also exposes the weakness of two familiar responses. Broad accusations of price-gouging are a poor substitute for understanding how energy markets work. Crude prices can jump immediately, and retail gasoline prices can follow as wholesalers and stations reprice the cost of replacement fuel, even though physical barrels still move through refineries, pipelines, terminals, and trucks.

A ban on U.S. crude exports would create a different problem. American producers often export lighter crude, while many domestic refineries are configured to process heavier grades. Disrupting that trade would not magically produce more gasoline. It could strand some domestic barrels, reduce the incentive to produce them, and weaken the same supply response that helps cushion global shocks.

Florida makes the larger point especially well. It is one of the nation’s biggest electricity consumers, and its energy system already depends on several sources.

More than 70% of Florida’s in-state electricity generation came from natural gas in 2025, while nuclear supplied more than one-tenth and renewables about 12%. Nearly all the natural gas Florida consumes arrives from the Gulf Coast through interstate pipelines. The state’s size and growth make energy resilience a practical necessity, not an abstraction. Florida’s energy profile is a case study in why diversity and infrastructure both count.

Florida also sits beside one of America’s largest strategic energy assets: the Gulf of America. The Gulf supplies about 14% of U.S. crude oil production and supports extensive offshore infrastructure, deepwater ports, processing facilities, and an experienced energy workforce.

That does not mean energy security begins and ends with drilling. Responsible offshore development in the Gulf should be part of the strategy, alongside expanded nuclear power, continued growth in renewables, stronger transmission and pipeline capacity, and the storage and port infrastructure needed to move energy when normal routes are disrupted.

RELATED: The diesel panic cure could make the disease worse

Frederic J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

Every energy source carries environmental costs. Limiting domestic oil and gas production does not eliminate demand; it can move production to countries with weaker standards and worse oversight. The same problem is emerging with critical minerals. Solar panels, batteries, transmission systems, and advanced nuclear technology all require enormous quantities of mined and processed materials.

Environmental protection therefore belongs inside energy policy. Development should meet high standards, and a greater share of the economic value created by domestic production should support conservation and restoration. Producing more of what America needs at home also gives the country greater room to respond when foreign supplies are disrupted.

The lesson from the Iran conflict is straightforward. Energy security requires abundant and diverse domestic supply, reliable supply chains, and infrastructure that can absorb a shock. The United States should continue developing oil and natural gas in the Gulf while expanding nuclear and renewable power and maintaining strong environmental standards.

Global instability is an argument for investment, not retreat. America needs enough energy, infrastructure, and natural resources to meet its own needs and support its allies without treating the landscapes and wildlife that are also part of the national interest as expendable.

​Crude oil, Deepwater ports, Electricity, Environmental protection, Florida, Offshore production, Renewable energy, Solar panels, Gas prices, Infrastructure, Energy policy, Opinion & analysis 

Time really does fly by. It has been nearly a decade since he left the White House, yet his intoxicating influence on the Democratic Party remains as strong as ever.

In recent weeks, he has turned his attention to artificial intelligence, arguably the most powerful technology America has ever created. The stakes are enormous. He is grooming the next generation of party leaders to determine how government should manage systems capable of writing code, generating answers for hundreds of millions, gaslighting people en masse, and essentially prompt-engineering reality.

The former president understands power dynamics better than almost anyone.

Who is he?

No, not Joe Biden. Not Bill Clinton either. Behind closed doors, Barack Obama has been hosting strategy sessions with prospective 2028 Democrat presidential candidates, tech CEOs, and ivory-tower intellectuals.

Conservatives remember the early days of social media all too well. In the late 2000s and 2010s, tech executives regularly visited the Oval Office, trading political support and huge sums of money for highly favorable regulatory treatment.

Right-leaning Americans watched in horror as digital town squares became perpetually policed ideological echo chambers. Conservative voices were routinely flagged or suppressed. Many were outright banned by 20-somethings in California operating under comically ambiguous safety and misinformation guidelines.

Those days were bad, but the social media fight looks rather quaint compared to what is happening right now.

Unlimited power?

A social network provides links you can check yourself. An automated system delivers answers directly to your screen. The software processes vast amounts of reading material and discards what it dislikes. It then presents a single narrative as the absolute truth. When a user asks a question, the underlying design chooses which facts to emphasize and which perspectives to conveniently omit.

RELATED: OpenAI cancels its latest chatbot — it wouldn’t stop acting like a supervillain

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

Barack Obama is many things, but he’s certainly not stupid. The former president understands power dynamics better than almost anyone in modern political history. He’s not approaching these tools like an entrepreneur building a better business product, but as a veteran political operative who recognizes that controlling the flow of information is the ultimate key to controlling public opinion. By serving as the central broker between tech executives and future Democrat nominees, he is ensuring that his party’s preferences are built directly into future government rules. That includes preferences on climate action, immigration, gun rights, abortion access, and LGBTQ insanity.

The corporate executives, whose principles have a remarkable habit of shifting with the party in power, are more than happy to pull up a chair. Giant corporations always prefer strict government rules because prohibitive compliance costs protect them from smaller competitors who might challenge their market dominance. Big tech gets legal protection and guaranteed market share, while Washington politicians get a back door into what these systems say and how they respond.

It is a mutually beneficial partnership between state power and corporate monopolies, dressed in the righteous language of public safety.

Democrat strategists learned plenty from their previous fights over social networks. They realized that policing millions of individual user posts after the fact is a rat’s nest of legal and political problems.

It is far more efficient to bake that control into the technology from the start. If you control the initial training materials and the guidelines that define acceptable output, you rig the outcome long before the public sees any results.

Government officials don’t need to seize physical data centers or buy corporate stock to dictate how these systems operate. Washington can simply pass sweeping rules governing safety standards, energy use, liability, and AI’s interaction with kids. Once those broad rules take effect, bureaucrats will have the authority to decide which companies are allowed to operate and which are forbidden to.

Here come the justifications

The official justification for this incoming regulatory push will sound completely reasonable to millions of Americans. Political figures will preach endlessly about national security threats and economic ruin. They will deliver carefully scripted, faux-passionate speeches on protecting the public from deepfakes and disinformation.

But as readers know, technical experts and political organizers carry their own partisan biases into every room they enter. When a panel of credentialed experts decides what counts as harmful information or acceptable political debate, they naturally write their worldview into law. The average family ends up taking ethical cues from a handpicked circle of out-of-touch elites, many of whom find conservative perspectives repugnant.

AI is already taking over society, serving as a key educational aid for American children and a powerful tool for researchers. The institutions that control future AI programs will possess an unprecedented ability to shape present-day cultural norms, our idea of our future, and even our historical memory.

An Obama-backed Democrat could win the next presidential election. Conservatives simply can’t afford to sit on the sidelines while the part-time podcaster and full-time puppet master, along with his allies, builds the blueprint for the next presidential administration. The central battle of the coming decade won’t be over which social website lets you post, but over who controls the systems that dictate reality itself.

​Artificial intelligence, Tech 

Attorney and Federalist senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland is taking the city of Dearborn, Michigan, which includes Muslim Mayor Abdullah Hammoud, to federal court.

Cleveland alleges that the city has violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by promoting one religion over others, and after hearing the full story, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck can’t help but agree.

Glenn explains that the purpose of the First Amendment, when it comes to religion, is “protecting the religion against government,” not the other way around.

“Well, in Dearborn, they’ve gone the opposite way. They are only celebrating Islamic holidays,” he says.

And this is why Cleveland is taking the city to court.

“If I didn’t do it, no one was going to do it,” she tells Glenn. “It has been a problem that I’ve been trying to rectify with the city for over a year. I did everything I could to try to avoid bringing a lawsuit. I basically went to city council and begged them to work with me, and they refused.”

“But the mayor has made clear that he will favor Islam, that he has a disregard for people who disagree with Islam, who hold other beliefs. The rhetoric that has come from him is extremely disturbing,” she explains.

One example Cleveland uses is the renaming of a street in Dearborn after a man named Siblani, who has called Hezbollah and Hamas “freedom fighters.”

“The mayor went and celebrated the street being renamed in Siblani’s name,” she says.

When a pastor complained, the mayor said on video, “You’re not welcome here.”

“You also had the mayor blaming Israel, on October 7, for what happened on October 7,” Cleveland tells Glenn, who doesn’t have much hope for the city.

“I think we’ve lost Dearborn. It’s an Islamic city, and I’m with you 100%,” he says, shocked.

“It’s extremely disturbing,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Glenn beck, Islam, Dearborn michigan, Abdullah hammoud, Margot cleveland, First amendment, Blazetv show 

Marriage creates a new family, and sometimes that means setting boundaries with the family you came from.

BlazeTV host Ron Simmons tackles complicated viewer questions of dealing with in-laws who might be causing more strain than the relationship is worth.

One viewer asked Simmons how to “deal with in-laws” who don’t share the viewer’s faith “when a child is involved.”

“I think you have to always respect your in-laws, up to the point where you make sure that there’s obviously no abuse or anything like that,” he says. “But I would say respect with boundaries.”

Simmons explains that a job that comes with being a Christian parent is to “expose our children to the love of Christ … so that the Holy Spirit can begin working on them and bring them under his umbrella.”

“And I wouldn’t allow anything, as much as I could, that would get in the way of that,” he says.

Simmons then reads a question from a viewer who explained that her father-in-law asked her husband “to keep his estate and money from the wives.”

“He said it’s not for us to know, but me and my husband tell each other everything. So it feels wrong for him to ask that,” the viewer explained.

“First of all, that’s wrong for … the dad to do that, all right? That automatically puts a strain between his son and daughter-in-law. I mean, that sets up a marriage strain right there,” Simmons explains.

“Now, a lot of people, maybe they’re first-generation money, they’re afraid that, you know, the wives are going to not respect that and, you know, go off and spend the money or something like that,” he says. “But as far as you and your husband go, it’s perfectly OK for your husband to talk to you about that, right?”

“You don’t break that bond,” he continues. “That’s why the Bible says that when we grow up and we get married, the husband leaves his mom and dad and clings to his wife, that they become one flesh, and one flesh shares with each other. I promise you, my right hand knows what my left hand is doing, right?

“Is it wrong for him to ask that? Personally, I think it is,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Ron simmons, Faith, Family, In-laws, Christianity, Boundaries, Blazetv show 

The morning after you win, the National Governors Association will call. Its leaders will offer a seminar, a binder, and a roster of former governors prepared to explain why you should slow down. Take the meeting if you must — but do not buy their theory.

The midterms may cost Republicans the House and possibly even the Senate. But they will not lose the states. Thirty-six governorships are on the ballot, and the incoming class, with open seats in Ohio, Alabama, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and others, will likely yield the most conservative slate of new governors in a generation.

The bureaucracy has weathered these past governors because they failed to act swiftly.

The federal government will likely be deadlocked in 2027, but the states offer hope for advancing a bold and transformative national agenda.

To carry out such an agenda, incoming governors must reject the advice found in the NGA’s transition manual, which is an apologia for paralysis. On page 39, a former governor offers what the association presents as wisdom: “As a businessman, I spent 90% of my time on process and 10% on policy. As governor, I find I spend 90% of my time on policy and 10% on process.” This advice comes from a man who once controlled his own calendar but learned to let someone else control it.

Unsurprisingly, he did not transform his state during his term in office.

The NGA’s strategic advice is designed to slow you down. In the first six to nine months, “Veteran governors advise that a new governor generally should minimize downtime by not undertaking major reorganizations, large-scale personnel changes beyond normal top-level appointments or other major actions unless absolutely necessary.”

The text then warns against using the honeymoon period to “eliminate some entrenched bureaucrat who has run a particular bureau like a fiefdom for 30 years,” because “experienced governors advise caution at precisely the time when difficult decisions seem easiest.” Page 19 adds a quota: Veteran governors “recommend only tackling three to five large programmatic changes during a term.”

The NGA seeks to lock you into stagnation by “maintaining credibility with the legislature, state bureaucracy, press, and public.” Fail at that, and you become a “caretaker, largely beholden to a bureaucracy that has previously weathered poor governors.”

The bureaucracy has weathered these past governors because they failed to act swiftly. As a new governor, you have a choice: safeguard left-wing institutions or act boldly with the mandate voters gave you.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) declined the seminar’s theory of the job. In his first term, he suspended Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren and won passage of the parental-rights law the education establishment said would never be approved. And when Disney used its private government to punish the state, DeSantis moved to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

His second term opened at the same speed. In January 2023, he replaced the board of trustees at New College of Florida, which fired the president at its first meeting and shut down the diversity office within weeks. That summer, DeSantis suspended Orange-Osceola State Attorney Monique Worrell. He filled the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, the replacement for Reedy Creek, with his appointees. None of this waited for month 10, and none of it counted against a “three-to-five” quota.

RELATED: The danger of calling the left stupid

ALEX EDELMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Ron DeSantis immediately targeted the offices that decide what the law means, and as a result, he is the most consequential governor of modern times.

President Trump’s second transition is the federal version of the same choice. The work of remaking the government began well before he took the oath of office. Inauguration Day produced a seismic list of executive orders that revoked the prior administration’s directives and froze pending rules.

President Trump moved policy-making career officials into positions where refusal to carry out the elected president’s program became grounds for removal. His speed and decisiveness made it impossible for the bureaucracy to stop him. He understood that since bureaucracy wins through inaction, such qualities are the best counter to its playbook.

The state version of the problem is worse than the NGA manual admits. Agencies are overstaffed relative to the work. A large share of the professional class inside them opposed your election and will oppose any order that threatens a program, a grant, or a headcount.

The NGA’s advice for staffing hundreds of boards and commissions — to staff them defensively, to “avoid embarrassment,” to keep them from consuming the governor’s time, and to wait until the crush of transition has passed — amounts to a 48-month holding pattern. Its goal is to outlast you.

Build the appointment list before election night. Know which boards can be abolished by statute and which must be filled by appointment in the first 60 days. Put your own counsel, budget director, and personnel leads in place before the inaugural balls are over. Carry out the reorganizations the NGA manual says to postpone. Publish the short list of agencies you intend to shrink — and shrink them while the people who run them are still writing memos about how hard that will be.

The bureaucracy is not your partner, and it is not waiting to be persuaded. It is overstaffed, and a meaningful share of its career employees do not want you to succeed. Treat it the way Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are treating it, or spend four years learning why the conservative governor before you left office with a binder full of process and a state that is merely treading water.

Editor’s note: This article was published in the American Mind.

​Bureaucracy, Executive orders, Federal government, House, Legislature, Midterms, Moderates, Republicans, Ron desantis, Senate, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump 

“It was at this moment he knew he screwed up,” a narrator says at the start of a Vancouver, Washington, police bodycam video showing a suspect falling from the ceiling of a local department store late last month.

Police said officers responded on Sept. 30 to the Vancouver Mall after employees reported that a male was crawling around in the ceiling and breaking through ceiling tiles.

‘Wow! They subdued Tarzan, grunts and all.’

Police said officers gave the male multiple commands to come down, but he kept moving through the ceiling, breaking more tiles and damaging lights, wiring, and other fixtures.

The second floor was evacuated while officers and firefighters tried to get the suspect down, police said.

Finally, a ladder was placed in the ceiling, and a mattress was placed on the floor in case the suspect fell, police said.

After more than an hour of trying to talk him into coming down, police said the suspect finally stepped upon the ladder.

However, police said the suspect then tried to climb back into the ceiling — but officers weren’t having it and pulled the ladder away to keep him from going back up into the ceiling.

And down he went.

RELATED: Homicide Suspect Breaks Handcuffs, Escapes Police Interview Room Through Ceiling Tile — and That’s Just for Starters

Police said the suspect landed on the mattress, but he had no intention of being led away quietly.

Instead, police said he got up and tried to run off.

“That didn’t work out so well,” police noted.

The suspect, Gabriel Hideo, was taken into custody, police said — amid frequent growls as he fought being handcuffed, according to the video.

Hideo was soon booked for:

Malicious mischief in the first degreeBurglary in the first degreeFelony warrant

A few hundred commenters under the police department’s video of the incident — which hilariously includes A-ha’s “Take On Me” as background music — had way too much fun reacting to the bizarre arrest.

“Was his name John Bender?? Was he making a ruckus???” one commenter wondered in a not-so-subtle nod to 1980s flick “The Breakfast Club.””Wow! They subdued Tarzan, grunts and all,” another user added. “And the music choice? Bonus points. Serious bonus points. Well done, VPD.””He sounds possessed, great job VPD!” another commenter exclaimed.”Made it a ways down into the comments, and not one complaint about excessive force so far. I’m impressed!” another user said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Washington state, Vancouver, Police, Arrest, Burglary, Weird news, Odd news, Crime 

It took Shane Gillis just two minutes into his last “Saturday Night Live” appearance to make the show’s liberal audience squirm.

Now he’s back for a third time, and “SNL” seems happy to play up his potential to offend — if that’s what it takes to get viewers to tune in.

‘I hope I can say those words on TV.’

Diddy do it?

Ahead of his return to “SNL” on Saturday, Gillis joked on his podcast about throwing Diddy a party when the rapper gets out of prison, promising to have his “finest men lined up” for the occasion.

The comedian seems as loose and on-point as ever — loose enough to suggest he’s going to throw Diddy a release party. And “SNL” seems happy to play up the possibility of what could transpire during Gillis’ third hosting appearance in as many years.

In fact, the show’s promos make a joke of Gillis’ reputation for causing trouble.

“I know what you did last time you was here,” cast member Kenan Thompson warns him. “Don’t be touching none of my stuff this week.”

“Kenan, I told you, I thought the cantaloupe was for everybody,” Gillis responded.

It’s a pretty tame exchange, especially compared with the material Gillis has delivered on the show before. But it sure is funny seeing “SNL” celebrate the same fearless attitude that got the comic fired before he ever set foot on its stage in 2019.

In 2025, Gillis broke the ice with his monologue by talking about how much “fun” life under President Trump was, poking fun at him before pivoting to remarks about former President Biden’s face going “dead” whenever he stopped talking.

Soon, Gillis was talking about the Civil War and asking the audience questions like, “Have you ever had sex with a black guy before?”

RELATED: Shane and Joe show us what real activism looks like

Will Heath/NBC/Getty Images

Bad words

Gillis’ initial return to the network in 2024, after being fired five years earlier, marked a huge turnaround for non-woke comedy.

It felt like Gillis had broken the sound barrier when he used words like “gay” and “retarded” on a very liberal, and very live, network broadcast.

“I hope I can say those words on TV,” Gillis said at the time. “It’s really well lit in here, and I can see you guys not enjoying it.”

Gillis later revealed that not everyone at “SNL” knew what he was going to say in the monologue. Even executive producer Lorne Michaels didn’t know the particulars.

“He was very supportive, because I kept telling him what I was going to say, and he was literally just like, ‘Don’t tell me, just do it.'”

This time around, everyone seemingly knows what to expect. That might take some of the wind out of Gillis’ sails, but perhaps Michaels doesn’t mind. Gillis has become a much bigger star since “SNL” let him go, with a hit Netflix series, a wildly popular podcast, and a stand-up career that recently took him to a sold-out football stadium.

“SNL” once decided it could do without him. Now it’s inviting him back for the third time.

RELATED: 50-year-old rock star tears up at MLB playoff game — only Millennials will understand

Will Heath/NBC/Getty Images

Gay old time

Moreover, the previews released by NBC only reinforce how far Gillis has moved beyond what the sketch show has to offer. The cast members hardly seem in his league, comedy-wise.

Any given portion of Gillis’ podcast with comic pal Matt McCusker is infinitely more entertaining, even when mustache trimming and “TGIF” sitcoms are the topic of discussion.

Gillis is still likely to offend on Saturday though. One simple riff from his podcast would have “SNL” audience members melting in disbelief, especially when he tells guests that any time there’s “nothing to talk about,” he simply starts accusing a member of the production team of being gay.

And if he does manage to offend someone, “SNL” can hardly complain. This time, it’s practically advertising the possibility.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Comedy, Saturday night live, Snl, Shane gillis, Lorne michaels, Entertainment 

The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with one of the most consequential climate cases in years. The justices do not have to decide whether climate change is real or whether carbon dioxide warms the planet. They face a more basic question: Who pays the tab?

In Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, Boulder County and the city of Boulder want ExxonMobil and Suncor to pay under Colorado law for local costs they attribute to global warming, while also alleging deceptive marketing. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed the claims to proceed.

A Colorado jury cannot set national climate policy, but a patchwork of state tort verdicts could begin to approximate one.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether federal law precludes them and whether it has jurisdiction to decide that question at this stage. The Trump administration is backing the companies.

This is not simply about two oil companies and one county. Boulder’s alleged injuries trace to greenhouse gases accumulated in a single global atmosphere over generations, from energy used in every state and nearly every country. Yet Colorado tort law would determine liability for selected companies.

Now multiply that. California could have one theory of damages, New York another, Hawaii a third. Nearly 60 state and local governments have brought similar cases. Different juries could impose different costs for alleged harms arising from the same global emissions pool. If every jurisdiction can pursue its own theory, climate tort begins to look less like compensation for a local injury and more like carbon pricing by litigation.

Boulder says it is applying ordinary state tort law, not regulating emissions. But whatever label courts use, large judgments against energy producers will not remain confined to the courthouse.

Then there is China. According to the Global Carbon Project, China accounts for roughly 32% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions, compared with about 13% for the United States. A Colorado court cannot impose comparable liability on Chinese state-owned producers for emissions in China. That asymmetry is hard to ignore.

New York offers a warning. Its Climate Change Superfund Act sought $75 billion from fossil fuel companies for historical emissions. One federal judge struck it down on August 31; another did the same on September 23. Both relied on the Clean Air Act and the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs. Those cases involved a state statute rather than tort claims, but they show that the federalism problem is not theoretical.

RELATED: Finally! EPA poised to repeal some climate hysteria over carbon emissions

Iiievgeniy/Getty Images

The lawsuits also leave out the other side of the ledger. Fossil fuels underpin synthetic nitrogen fertilizer that supports food production for roughly half the world, along with medical plastics, sterile packaging, transportation, and dispatchable power. A tort case can price alleged harms without pricing those benefits. Successful climate lawsuits would still raise costs somewhere in the system.

Nor did weather disasters begin with today’s carbon dioxide levels. The 1900 Galveston hurricane killed an estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people. In 1871, after a summer of drought, the Peshtigo fire burned more than a million acres and killed between 1,200 and 2,400 people. The Dust Bowl followed in the 1930s.

None of that settles the science. It shows something narrower: Disaster causation is not binary. A court asked to assign one company a share of a particular drought, fire, or flood must separate baseline risk from any incremental climate effect and then apportion responsibility across global emissions.

RELATED: Your new house comes with a green surcharge

Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Then comes the question of who pays. Energy demand is relatively inelastic in the short run. To the extent that judgments raise costs for American suppliers, some of those costs will be passed through at the pump, on heating and electricity bills, and in the price of goods. Lower-income households spend a larger share of their budgets on energy, so they feel increases most.

Congress can write national climate law. The EPA can regulate within the authority Congress gives it. Voters can hold both accountable. A Colorado jury cannot set national climate policy, but a patchwork of state tort verdicts could begin to approximate one.

The justices do not have to settle climate science. They have to decide whether state courts, one lawsuit at a time, may impose liability for a global emissions problem.

The answer should be no.

​Carbon dioxide, Climate hysteria, Exxonmobil, Federal law, Food production, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Supreme court, Trump administration, Oil companies, Global carbon project, Cleanr air act, Opinion & analysis 

The mayor of Cocoa in Florida is asking for prayers and support for a mother in his community who suffered a horrific loss on Wednesday.

The mother called 911 after going to pick up her children, ages 5 and 7 years old, at their father’s home because it was her turn to have custody, according to the Cocoa Police Department.

‘The children’s mother, Olivia, tells me she wants everybody to know how much she loved these babies and how amazing they are.’

She found the two children and the father dead.

“The door was partially ajar, and she went inside and found all three deceased,” said Cocoa Police Chief Evander Collier IV.

Police believe the father killed the two children and then committed suicide.

The man was identified as 37-year-old Joseph Kyle Dingwall, and the two children were identified as Aria Dingwall and Remy Dingwall.

The man was captured on surveillance video pacing around, according to police.

Police also indicated that they had been called out to the home in 11 previous incidents.

A neighbor who lives across the street from the home told WESH-TV that he heard two gunshots the previous night but that he neglected to call police.

“Two gunshots. Two clear gunshots, and it was 12.20 a.m., midnight,” Marcos Garcia said.

WESH reported that it was unclear whether the gunshot noises came from the house.

The children’s mother spoke to WESH reporter Gail Paschall-Brown on Thursday.

RELATED: 6 people found dead in New York home, including 4 children — handwritten note points to grandmother, police say

“The children’s mother, Olivia, tells me she wants everybody to know how much she loved these babies and how amazing they are,” Paschall-Brown said.

“We ask that you continue to hold them up in prayer, show support and love because tough times don’t always last; tough people do,” Mayor Michael C. Blake said about the woman’s family.

WESH said it was the fourth apparent murder-suicide incident in southern Florida in the past few days.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Florida, Murder suicide, Child murder, Custody battle, Crime