SCORN IN THE USA: Bruce has no use for Trump-voting fans



Bruce Springsteen has a severe case of Kimmel-itis.

Former “Man Show” host Jimmy Kimmel once told a journo he wasn’t worried about losing Republican viewers due to his hard-left shift. “Not good riddance but riddance,” the lachrymose late-nighter quipped.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is furious about the Trump-Kennedy Center’s choice for the Mark Twain Prize for Humor.

Now, the 76-year-old Boss is singing a similar tune. He’s hitting the road for a new, anti-Trump tour, complete with official No Kings messaging and, hopefully, lots of fiber in his tour bus fridge. And he doesn’t care if he sheds fans along the way.

“I don’t worry about if you’re going to lose this part of your audience. I’ve always had a feeling about the position we play culturally, and I’m still deeply committed to that idea of the band. The blowback is just part of it. I’m ready for all that.”

His shrinking fan base might not be ready for those sky-high ticket prices

Best Actor

Josh Duhamel isn’t an A-list star, but he’s got a mindset his peers might consider.

The “Shotgun Wedding” alum is taking them to task about their political posturing. Shut up and act, he suggested, although he phrased it in a more genteel manner. Why? They might stay employed if they do, which is a bigger issue in today’s shrinking Hollywood.

“I have real strong opinions about things, but I don’t really talk about them. … Why would I alienate half my audience? Because I respect their views on things, but I’m not going to preach to them. They can believe what they want.”

Somewhere, Johnny Carson is smiling …

RELATED: UNCANNY VAL: Val Kilmer makes creepy AI 'comeback' one year after death

Feature China/Michael Ochs Archives/CBS Photo Archives/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Next-Files

The truth is out there, but will anybody recognize it?

That “X-Files” reboot from Oscar winner Ryan Coogler is moving forward, and we know who the two main actors will be — Himesh Patel and Danielle Deadwyler. Are they the new Mulder and Scully?

No.

So if there’s no Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny, and the new leads are playing fresh characters, what makes it an “X-Files” joint, to borrow Spike Lee’s phrase? The show’s original creator, Chris Carter, is an executive producer on the project, which often is a glorified credit given out of respect, not hands-on involvement.

To Hollywood, it really doesn’t matter. It’s all about brand recognition and familiar IPs. All we know is there better be a man smoking somewhere, or you’ll see riots in Nerdville ...

I don't CAIR; do you?

Oooh, CAIR is mad.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is furious about the Trump-Kennedy Center’s choice for the Mark Twain Prize for Humor. It’s Bill Maher, the HBO host and veteran stand-up comic who refuses to ignore Islam’s problematic headlines.

Maher is an equal-opportunity offender when it comes to religion. He even made a movie about it. Since most celebrities steer clear of Islam in general, his comments stand out. CAIR even shared a fiercely worded statement on the selection.

“Mr. Maher would have never received this recognition if he were an antisemitic comedian who supported terrorism against Jewish-Americans or Israelis, but his open bigotry against Muslims and support for the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza are somehow perfectly acceptable.”

CAIR didn’t point to any incendiary Maher riffs, according to the Hollywood Reporter, but the organization said he supports Israel and has attacked Hamas as “evil.” Evil? Now, where would Maher get that idea …

Sweeney's salute

If you thought leftists hated Sydney Sweeney already, this will send them over the edge.

The “Euphoria” star enraged progressives last year by joking about the words “genes” and “jeans” in an American Eagle ad. White supremacist, they cried, revealing more about themselves than anything Sweeney actually did.

The starlet took the blowback in stride, as did American Eagle, which watched its stock prices soar thanks to the commercial.

Now, Sweeney is toasting her little brother, who is serving in the U.S. military overseas. And she’s extending her good wishes to the men and women doing the same.

"Thinking of all our boys and girls overseas and sending my love! Thank you for your service :)."

Meanwhile, late-night comedians are skewering the U.S. over its decision to topple Iranian despots, and stars like Javier Bardem want the war that stopped the mass slaughter of Iranian citizens stopped at all costs.

Clearly, Sweeney has gone too far.

Catholic church sees huge surge in attendance — due to inclusivity?



Catholic churches across the United States are seeing increases in attendance, especially for Easter.

This comes just a few short months after Pope Leo XIV was interpreted as making a push for more inclusivity within the religion.

'[There is] a thirst and hunger for God and stability that faith brings to people's lives.'

An Italian academic who follows the Vatican said earlier this year that the new pope is likely to continue his predecessor's "trajectories."

Pope Francis famously said in 2013, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

To that end, Pope Leo's comments at the beginning of 2026 were determined by some to signal an increasing tolerance toward those who are typically considered at odds with the Catholic tradition.

"Only love is trustworthy; only love is credible," the pope said in January. "While unity attracts, division scatters."

However, the truth was somewhere in the details. Massimo Faggioli, the academic from Trinity College Dublin, told Reuters that the pope was "working to convince the cardinals that they need to work collectively together to do what the Catholic people want them to do."

As the year has progressed, followers have learned that while the pope told his biographer the church's beliefs about "gay and trans people" has not changed, he added, "but the Church invites everyone."

RELATED: Massachusetts stands firm on denying Catholic couple foster parent license — even after state scraps woke policy

Grzegorz Galazka/Archivio Grzegorz Galazka/Mondadori Portfolio/Getty Images

Truly progressive messaging was not clearly found in the pope's Lent messaging soon thereafter. He asked parishes to listen to "the word of God, as well as to the cry of the poor and of the earth."

He said Catholics must strive to make their communities places where "the cry of those who suffer finds welcome, and listening opens paths towards liberation, making us ready and eager to contribute to building a civilization of love."

No matter how one interprets the pope's call to religious arms in 2026, it has seemingly worked, with a recent survey of Catholic parishes showcasing a rather large uptick in attendance.

The New York Times reported at length about the surge in followers, starting with the Archdiocese of Detroit, which will see 1,428 new Catholics for Easter, its highest in 21 years.

Galveston-Houston will see a 15-year peak, while Des Moines has an increase of 51% this year, 265 to 400.

Washington Cardinal Robert McElroy said his congregation is up by nearly 200 — already at its highest in 15 years — while Philadelphia's following has nearly doubled since 2017. Newark has gone from 1,000 Easter-goers in 2010 to 1,700 in 2026.

RELATED: Hollywood gossip king returns to Christ: Perez Hilton’s shocking conversion

Grzegorz Galazka/Archivio Grzegorz Galazka/Mondadori Portfolio/Getty Images

McElroy told the Times he thinks the Holy Spirit is behind the surge, while Archbishop Mitchell Thomas Rozanski of St. Louis says the increase could be due to a rise in uncertainty and anxiety.

There is "a thirst and hunger for God and stability that faith brings to people's lives," he said. The archbishop then blamed technology and COVID-19 for magnifying isolation.

The report also claimed that those between 18 and 35 years old were the noted age range that has seen the most growth among several dioceses.

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

The pork chop diet (and other secrets of cooking for one)



I just finished "BLT week." This was a week in which I ate one bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich every day. By doing so, I managed to consume one 16-ounce packet of bacon, most of two slicing tomatoes, and a ball of iceberg lettuce in eight days.

This is the price you pay when you’re single and live by yourself. When the extra fancy bacon goes on sale at your local supermarket, you can’t resist buying it. And then you hurriedly pick up a tomato and lettuce.

People have urged me to invest in a quality freezer. But I don’t want to live a freezer life. I watched my Boomer father give his best years to the freezer ethos.

And then it’s a race to eat all that bacon before it goes bad, or gets relegated to the back of the refrigerator, where it will eventually go really bad.

I know you can use bacon in a lot of different ways, but I’m not that creative. I stick with the BLTs. And maybe a couple of strips with breakfast.

But of course, familiarity breeds contempt. And so after a week of constant bacon, I’ve had enough.

Pork for dorks

Last month, I did a "pork chop week." It was the same scenario as the bacon: I bought a packet of five pork chops on sale. But then I had to make sure to eat one a day, lest I forget about them and they end up in the back of my fridge, where I would rediscover them months later.

This is a standard practice for me. Since I’m rarely cooking for someone else, and I can’t resist a deal, I end up buying family-sized portions of different food products — which I then feel obligated to eat continuously until they're gone.

I suppose I could buy a “grab-and-go,” single-person meal from the deli section of my supermarket. These meals are designed for chronically stressed-out single people, who have given up on life.

Typically, they consist of one sad pork chop, a pathetic glop of mashed potatoes, and three scrawny green beans, all encased in microwaveable plastic, for the outrageous price of $20.

No thank you on that. Instead I buy the pork chop family pack. Five pork chops for $5.

Those five pork chops are intended to be one meal for a family of five.

But for me, it’s a week’s worth of pork chops. At the end of which, I’d rather not see another pork chop for a while.

A friend in need

I have a friend who is also single. She lives alone in another state. She gets caught in the same trap, buying too much food, much of which is perishable.

But unlike me, she doesn’t force herself to eat it all. She throws the extra in the fridge and forgets about it.

This is where I come in. I go visit her and spend a week eating all the leftovers in her fridge. The fish sticks she didn’t eat. The remainder of a takeout pad thai order. Half of a tuna casserole she forgot about. Or part of a stale Sarah Lee cheesecake.

Recently, I found slices of cold pizza that had spent weeks in the back of her fridge. Fortunately, using my advanced single-guy microwave skills, I was able to bring these deceased pizza slices back to life and make a nice meal out of them.

Singles going steady

Some people refer to these food portion problems as a “singles tax.” It’s that extra bit you have to pay because you have not coupled up or don’t have a family.

You especially get gouged by the singles tax when you travel. I travel a lot, and the amount I spend on hotels ... yikes! Or paying for gas on long driving trips when I’m the only person in the car. Such trips feel very wasteful.

But this is becoming the norm: Solo travelers, solo diners, solo apartment dwellers — more than ever, people are living by themselves.

According to Pew Research, “About 38% of adults aged 25 to 54 in the U.S. are unpartnered, which includes those living alone, a significant increase from 29% in 1990.”

Alone again, naturally

So where did this trend away from couples and toward singletons begin? For myself, it began in my 20s. I knew that I wanted to be a writer, which is, of course, a precarious profession.

In my case, that seemed to preclude a wife and kids. How would I support them over the inevitable lean years? I wouldn’t want to force my “starving artist” lifestyle on a family.

But nowadays, you don’t have to justify being single by your choice of jobs. People just prefer it.

Men and women no longer have a “yin and yang” relationship. They are no longer considered two different types of humans who complement each other and need each other’s different abilities.

No, men and women are increasingly the same. They both have jobs. They both own homes. They both have cars and gym memberships and credit cards and food preferences.

As they have become more isolated and less dependent on one another, men and women increasingly live alone, shop alone, dine alone.

Everyone can take care of themselves. Nobody needs anybody. It sounds good in terms of personal freedom. But you can’t help wonder about the long-term societal effects.

And really, how happy can you be when you’re forced to eat yet another BLT, after you just ate six of them?

RELATED: All downhill from here: An aging hot dog hangs up his skis

Pierre Lahalle/Getty Images

Cold, cold heart

And yes, people have urged me to invest in a quality freezer. But I don’t want to live a freezer life. I watched my Boomer father give his best years to the freezer ethos: putting stuff in there and then digging it out, five years later, covered in ice and snow, and not remembering what it is or why he bought it.

No, I want to live now. I want to eat now. I want to go to the supermarket and feel the thrill of finding a jumbo pack of gourmet chicken apple sausage at half price!

If that means I’ll be eating chicken apple sausage every day for the rest of the calendar year, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Hope, always hope

In the meantime, I remain hopeful that change is possible. That men and women will come together, embrace their differences, and learn to live with each other again. (And increase the birthrate?)

Only then will we create the kind of families who can easily consume five pork chops in one sitting.

In the meantime, if you need any chicken apple sausage, I’ve got extra.

Blinded by modern headlights? A new visor aims to cut the glare



Night driving used to be routine. Now for many drivers, it’s something they actively dread.

The reason is simple: Modern headlights are getting brighter — and for everyone outside the vehicle using them, that often means blinding glare. Drivers are dealing with harsh, white LED and laser lights that can overwhelm their vision in seconds. It’s not just uncomfortable. It’s a real safety issue.

Instead of flipping down a solid visor that blocks part of the windshield, the system uses a clear panel that darkens electronically.

Now Michigan-based auto tech company Gentex says it may have a solution.

Bright lights, big pity

Automakers have spent years pushing more powerful lighting systems in the name of safety. On paper, brighter headlights improve visibility for the driver behind the wheel.

But on real roads, the effect is more complicated.

For oncoming traffic, those same lights can reduce visibility, not improve it. Drivers report being dazzled, losing contrast, and struggling to see lane markings, pedestrians, or obstacles for several seconds after exposure.

That’s not a minor inconvenience. At highway speeds, even a brief loss of clear vision can have serious consequences.

And the data backs up what drivers already know.

A 2024 European survey found that 71% of drivers say headlight glare is intolerable or extremely annoying. More than half say they sometimes squint or briefly close their eyes to cope. A majority report difficulty seeing the road during those moments.

In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says glare is now the number one lighting-related complaint from drivers.

Nightly trade-off

This is a classic example of a well-intentioned change creating a new problem.

Headlights have become more powerful due to advances in LED and laser technology, along with evolving safety standards. But there has been less focus on how those lights affect everyone else on the road.

The result is a trade-off drivers feel every night: One driver sees better; everyone else sees worse.

That imbalance is now drawing regulatory attention. European regulators are studying whether lighting rules need to change, and in the U.S., complaints continue to rise.

But regulatory fixes take time — and in the meantime, drivers still have to deal with the problem.

RELATED: Why are modern car headlights so blindingly bright?

Chris Graythen/Getty Images

Dim some

That’s where companies like Gentex come in.

The proposed solution is a transparent, dimmable sun visor designed to reduce glare from oncoming headlights. Instead of flipping down a solid visor that blocks part of the windshield, the system uses a clear panel that darkens electronically. You can still see through it, but the harsh light is softened.

The technology builds on something many drivers already trust: auto-dimming rearview mirrors. Sensors detect bright light, and the glass adjusts instantly to reduce glare.

Bringing that same concept to the front of the vehicle is a logical next step — and in practice, it works.

In testing and demonstration, the effect is noticeable. The glare is reduced without blocking the road ahead, which is the key difference from a traditional visor. It doesn’t feel like a work-around so much as a natural extension of a feature drivers already rely on.

Eye spy

For drivers who regularly deal with bright, poorly aimed headlights, this kind of technology could make a meaningful difference.

It reduces eyestrain. It makes night driving less fatiguing. And importantly, it does so without requiring drivers to change how they drive or where they refuel — something that has been a sticking point with other new automotive technologies.

That’s part of what makes this approach compelling.

Rather than waiting for a full redesign of headlight standards — or expecting perfect compliance across millions of vehicles — this is a solution that works within the reality drivers already face.

In many ways, this is how the auto industry has always evolved.

A problem emerges. Regulations lag behind. And suppliers step in with technology that improves the driving experience in the meantime.

Made in the shade

Gentex has done this before with auto-dimming mirrors. This visor builds on that same idea — using relatively simple, proven technology to solve a very real problem.

And because it doesn’t require a complete redesign of the vehicle, it’s easier for automakers to adopt.

Like most new features, the dimmable visor will likely appear first in higher-end vehicles when it launches around 2027. Over time, as costs come down, it could move into more mainstream models.

That matters because the underlying issue isn’t going away. Headlights will likely continue getting brighter as automakers pursue better forward visibility and new lighting technologies. Which means glare will remain part of the driving experience.

Practical work-around

Gentex’s dimmable visor doesn’t solve the root issue of headlight glare — but it doesn’t need to. What it does is something more immediate: It gives drivers a way to manage a problem they already deal with every night.

And based on early impressions, it does that in a way that feels intuitive, effective, and easy to live with. In today’s automotive landscape, that kind of practical innovation can go a long way.

Because for many drivers, the challenge isn’t seeing the road. It’s seeing clearly when the road lights up in front of them.

For more on this, check out my interview with Gentex's Craig Piersma.

Hollywood gossip king returns to Christ: Perez Hilton’s shocking conversion



Best known for his snarky celebrity gossip blog, famous for its vicious takes on Hollywood’s biggest dramas, Perez Hilton recently returned from a grueling hospital ordeal with a shocking message: God is not only real — He is good.

After a bout of the flu that escalated into a perforated stomach ulcer and ultimately sepsis, Hilton was hospitalized for 21 brutal days of procedures and surgeries. During this tumultuous time, he claims he encountered God — not in the kind of drug-induced delirium we often hear about from people in near-death situations, but while he was apparently fully conscious.

'He is in my heart, and He is the main reason why I am healing so quickly.'

“God presented himself to me,” Hilton said in a 25-minute video released on March 23.

“I was very lucid. It was real, and this has been life-changing,” he added tearfully.

Even though Hilton had a religious upbringing — baptized, confirmed, and schooled in the Catholic faith as a youth — he was “never a believer” until this “miraculous” experience turned his world upside down.

After two weeks of invasive procedures, stubborn infections that wouldn’t heal, new complications picked up in the hospital, and the humbling ordeal of needing help with basic bodily functions, Hilton reached a rock-bottom place he described as “hell.”

But it seems God met him in that darkness and not only spared his earthly life (Hilton is now home and steadily recovering) but, I pray, his eternal one as well.

The 48-year-old, openly gay single father of three surrogate-born children says he’s now “excited to start taking the kids to church” and hopes to enroll them in a local Catholic school near their Las Vegas residence.

RELATED: Gwen Stefani reveals 'miracle' that brought her to God at 44

ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images

What’s more, his spiritual experience has compelled him to make adjustments in his personal life. “I'm ashamed of myself,” Hilton admitted. “I felt this need to produce for my family so much that I was doing this and that … and not doing the little things,” he said, calling himself a “workaholic.”

“It was Grandma who would do dinner with the kids every night. No more. I'm gonna have dinner with my kids and my mom every night from now on,” he vowed.

In an even more recent video, Hilton announced that he has “zero desire to drink” alcohol after his encounter with God.

The video, captioned “goodbye and good riddance,” highlighted how “clear” his eyes look now.

“The future is bright. God is good. I’ve continued my journey with God, and I’m speaking to Him, and He is in my heart, and He is the main reason why I am healing so quickly,” he said, smiling.

Despite his rapid weight loss and exhausted countenance, Hilton appears to be a changed man.

A deeper standard

But if you’re anything like me, these kinds of sudden, highly emotional conversions give you pause — especially when they happen to people with large platforms who depend on clicks and clout.

You may recall the story of 24-year-old British OnlyFans model Lily Phillips, who publicly converted to Christianity and was baptized in December 2025 after going viral for completing the horrendous challenge of sleeping with 101 men in a single day.

I was thrilled to see what initially looked like repentance from Lily. I celebrate when anyone accepts Christ but especially people with grimy, dark backgrounds. If genuine, their testimonies become some of the most powerful, compelling cases for God’s incomprehensible grace — drawing broken people who believe they are unredeemable into the family of God. I love to see it.

But tragically, Lily immediately returned to making, and posting pornographic content, even justifying her pornographic content, saying, “I understand that my faith and my work don’t fit neatly into everyone’s expectations of what a Christian ‘should’ look like,” she recently claimed. “... Christianity, for me, isn’t about pretending I have everything figured out or meeting other people’s standards.”

You won’t ever hear me make the final call on someone’s heart or salvific status. That is God’s role alone. But Scripture does give us instruction about evaluating the legitimacy of our own and others’ faith.

Trees can be judged by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-20). Some seeds sprout quickly and then wither shortly after (Matthew 13:5-6). Faith without works is dead (James 2:17). Obedience — not simply claiming to know the Lord — is the primary indicator of true faith (Matthew 7:21).

These instructions, of course, must be weighed against the grueling process of sanctification — that painfully slow stripping away of our innate bend toward sin. But from what I have witnessed and personally experienced, the process of sanctification doesn’t begin until we let God reign.

When we do, that doesn’t mean we suddenly stop sinning altogether, but it does mean that we’re no longer comfortable in our rebellion. It means we want to stop doing the things that nailed our Savior to a cross — even if it takes years to actually stop doing them.

Time will tell?

I pray that’s the case with Lily — and I pray for the same for Perez Hilton. His public statements of faith in the aftermath of his spiritual encounter initially read, at least to me, as authentic. Not just because he sounds sincere in the videos he’s posted, but because there already seems to be the beginnings of fruits in his life.

Choosing sobriety, taking your kids to church, and setting intentions to put family above work are all promising signs that his professed faith is deeper than the emotional and physical trauma he just survived.

I’m tempted to say time will tell, but it won’t, because, again, hearts can only be read by God. But time will give us clues. Once the emotions of contending with his own death stabilize, once trials and tribulations return, as they always do, once he reckons with the reality that parts of his lifestyle are in rebellion against God — then perhaps we will have a better understanding of what Perez Hilton really believes in.

In the meantime, we should sincerely pray for him. It isn’t easy for a public figure — especially one whose platform is intertwined with the sick and twisted world of Hollywood — to come out as a Christian. I imagine the road ahead of him will be difficult if his faith is sincere. I hope we can ease some of that burden by contending for him in our prayers.

'Infinite diversity': Actress in canned 'Star Trek' series warns against 'whitewashed' sci-fi



The most notably progressive "Star Trek" series will be canceled by CBS Studios and Paramount+, prompting one of its actors to demand the show's lore nevertheless become more "woke."

Studios were so supportive of "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" that Paramount+ picked it up for a second season before the show even aired; but that will be all.

'The world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, [and] infinite diversity.'

The show's demise began when it launched for free on YouTube — an already bad sign — garnering just over 85,000 views in the first 24 hours; not good for a show with an estimated budget of $10 to $20 million per episode.

Nothing could prepare audiences for the show's trajectory though. The new series boasted polyamorous refugee Klingons, Stephen Colbert, and gender activist Tig Notaro playing a teacher pushing DEI ideology on cadets.

Progressivism certainly flowed through the series' actors. Case in point, Gina Yashere, who played Lura Thok.

Yashere took to Instagram after the show's cancelation to declare that audiences aren't ready to hear about love and tolerance and that future iterations must avoid becoming too white.

RELATED: New 'Star Trek' DEI disaster flops despite airing for free: A 'huge, gay, glee club middle finger'

"Obviously, the world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, infinite diversity, acceptance, the eschewing of violence and senseless wars," she said in a video, first reported by Fandom Pulse.

She added, "And 'Star Trek' will be back stronger than ever. And preferably with the same message and not completely whitewashed."

In her written caption, Yashere made it abundantly clear she was proud of the show's woke ideology as well.

"Be safe out there peeps. Stay woke. Wokeywoke. Wokest of the woke. Wokeyliscious. A cacophony of woke."

The show's messaging was never left for interpretation either. Its actors and showrunners will have to come to terms with the fact that they fully presented their intent, and it was not viewed favorably.

RELATED: Polyamorous refugee Klingons: New 'Star Trek' writer makes 'three-parent household' a priority

Photo by Michael Tullberg/Getty Images

When the show first aired, series creator Alex Kurtzman said he was "not slowing down on representation in any way," while characterizing "representation" as being the "beating heart" of the show.

Karim Diane, who played the aforementioned Klingon who wore a skirt and dress, said back in January that his character would have his sexuality "explored."

This manifested in a Klingon/human love story the character had with an allegedly "nonbinary" person.

Diane has since promised the second season is "basically just Season 1 turned all the way up."

In a statement to Variety, both CBS and Paramount said that while they were "incredibly proud of the ambition, passion, and creativity" the series showcased, it will not receive a third season.

Variety also reported that "Starfleet Academy" failed to secure a significant audience and did not rank among Nielsen's Top 10 charts for streaming viewership.

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

Watch 'The Last Whites of the East End': The BBC documentary they want you to forget



The British East End has long stood as the beating heart of London’s working class — famous for its docks, bustling markets, pie and mash shops, and the unbreakable Cockney spirit.

That all changed during the ten years of Tony Blair’s government, which, driven by a zealous doctrine of multiculturalism, threw open Britain’s borders. As Blair’s own former speechwriter bluntly put it, this was designed to "rub the right’s nose in diversity." The result has been a demographic upheaval so swift and far-reaching that today the traditional East Ender is often spoken of as an endangered species.

The most visible sign of this transformation is in local schools. In many East End primary schools, white British children are now a minority.

The 2016 BBC documentary "Last Whites of the East End" brought that shift into public view. A decade on, it plays less like reportage than elegy — a stark record of a culture on the brink of disappearance.

Wholesale displacement

It is telling, if not entirely surprising, that the documentary is no longer available to stream on BBC iPlayer, as if the establishment would rather erase this uncomfortable chapter and its role in it. For this is not a case of natural urban evolution, but the direct result of policy-driven mass immigration, the emergence of parallel societies, and the wholesale displacement of the native population.

The numbers tell part of the story. According to the 2011 Census, white British residents became a minority in London for the first time. Writer David Goodhart noted that between 2001 and 2011, London’s white British population fell by more than 600,000. London has always absorbed newcomers — but the speed of change, he argued, was something different.

In boroughs like Newham, the shift is especially stark. By the time the documentary was filmed, white British residents made up just 16.7% of the population. For those interviewed, these figures are not abstract — they map onto the disappearance of institutions that once anchored daily life: working men’s clubs, markets, churches.

Cockney migration

Cockney identity was never just an accent. It was a dense web of family ties, shared references, and a particular way of navigating life in the city. For Americans, the closest analogue might be the “Old Brooklyn” archetype — a tight-knit, working-class culture forged in proximity and sustained over generations. Today, much of that culture has migrated outward, into Essex towns like Romford and Basildon.

Politicians often frame this movement as upward mobility — a sign that people are leaving for bigger homes and better prospects. But that explanation only partially captures what residents themselves describe. For many, the change is less like opportunity than dislocation. It is not aspiration that drives so-called "white flight," but the recognition that the neighborhood has become unrecognizable.

Walk through Whitechapel Market today, and the shift is unmistakable. The rhythms of Cockney traders — the coster cries that once defined the place — have largely faded. In their place, the call to prayer from the nearby East London Mosque carries across the market five times a day, an audible sign of how profoundly the area has changed. When pubs are converted into mosques or community centers, and when English is seldom heard on the street, the social glue that once held a working-class community together begins to dissolve.

Socially engineered segregation

The rapid demographic changes in East London are not an accident of history — they are the result of intentional government policy. Decades of uncontrolled immigration, combined with imported antiquated customs that discouraged assimilation, have led to the formation of ethnic enclaves. Rather than socially engineering a liberal utopia, these circumstances have produced segregated communities where different ethnic groups live side by side but rarely interact.

In some migrant communities in East London, consanguineous (cousin) marriage remains prevalent, leading to serious public health problems that mainstream media often ignore. In areas like Newham and Tower Hamlets, rates of infant mortality and congenital disabilities are much higher than the national average.

A 2023 study found that British Pakistanis, who make up about 3% of all U.K. births, accounted for nearly one-third of all British children born with genetic disabilities — a direct result of intra-family marriage. A 2017 report revealed that one in five infant deaths in the east London borough of Redbridge was linked to marriages between first cousins or closer. This practice reinforces loyalty to the biraderi (clan) rather than the nation and seriously slows integration.

RELATED: Pakistani cousin marriage has no place in UK

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Tongue-tied

The most visible sign of this transformation is in local schools. In many East End primary schools, white British children are now a minority. In Newham they make up just 5% of students — the lowest in the region.

The documentary features parents like Leanne, who ultimately chose to move her family to Essex. She explained that her daughter was one of only a few white children in her class, making it hard for her to find friends who shared her cultural background.

English is no longer the main language spoken at home for many families in these boroughs. In Newham alone, over 100 languages are spoken, and in many schools, most students speak English as an additional language. While policymakers often praise such diversity, for the remaining white working class, it creates a sense of profound alienation. The everyday sounds of the street have changed, and for elderly residents interviewed in "Last Whites of the East End," not being able to speak to their neighbors is the final blow to their sense of belonging.

Strangers at home

Ten years on, "Last Whites of the East End" no longer looks like a snapshot of a community in transition. It reads as an early record of a transformation that has only accelerated.

As the last white British families move to the edges of Essex, they take with them centuries of London’s heritage, leaving behind ethnic enclaves that, while geographically in England, have become culturally and socially detached from the nation that hosts them.

This is not simply "change." A specific culture — rooted in place, memory, and continuity — is being displaced. What emerges in its place may be called diversity, or progress, or modernity. But for the people who once defined the East End, it is something else entirely: the experience of becoming strangers in what was, until recently, their own home.

Kodachrome and 4 other things I want back from the 20th century



Buckle up, Boomers and Gen Xers, because I’m going to serve you up some nostalgia bait. Stop at the concession booth to pick up your complimentary rose-colored glasses, and don’t feel shy.

Generation X was born between 1965 and 1980. We are the last generation who experienced the real, physical world the way most humans have experienced it. We came along when generational transitions were gradual. We knew our Boomer parents’ music and movie stars, and we know our Silent Generation grandparents’ music and movie stars. As a kid, I knew who the Andrews Sisters were, and I could sing along because my grandmother played their records.

There will be Slant Six engines running in good health long after I’m dead, just as God intended.

Compare to today: The average Gen Z kid has no idea who Michael Jackson, Madonna, or Lucille Ball are. Starting with Millennials, a chasm opened up between generations. People a generation younger asked who some of the most world-famous stars were when they were working and alive just 20 years earlier.

With Gen Z it’s even starker. They were given digital poison in the form of smartphones in their tender years, and the entire cultural landscape fragmented into a billion bespoke Balkan states.

It’s hard to convince young people that some of the technologies from the bad old world of analog were actually superior to what we have today. They don’t believe that phone calls on copper wire were clear and never dropped (it’s true, though). Hilariously, they think film photography was always blurry and little better at capturing detail than an Impressionist painter.

Well, some of these things were better. And I want them back.

1. Kodachrome film

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

I trained as a photographer in college, and that was going to be my career. But then digital came along. I was in romantic love with the hands-on craft that was film photography. When computers took over, I packed it all away because I was in love with silver gelatin emulsions, not silicon chips.

The loss of Kodachrome color slide film was the worst, and I shed real tears when Kodak pulled the plug. There was no color film in history that reproduced color as well as Kodachrome did; there’s a reason Paul Simon wrote the song. He was right.

Kodachrome was actually a black-and-white film with no built-in dyes like all other color films. Instead it captured the blue, red, and green light on three layers in the film separately. The color dyes were added during the wet chemical processing, and those dyes were richer and more time-stable than ordinary color film. This is why a Kodachrome slide from the 1940s looks like a high-quality photograph taken today — there’s no fading or washed-out colors like many of us see in old color photos in our family albums.

It was also the sharpest film with the highest resolution. A scene taken on Kodachrome was reproduced in such detail that looking at the slide was nearly like looking at real life through a window.

Because you’re reading this on a computer screen, you and I can’t see what the slide “really” looks like. It’s mediated by an electronic screen. But you can still see the rich color and fine detail that no other film could achieve.

2. Three-strip Technicolor

People today talk about bright hues looking like “Technicolor,” but few people understand what that really meant. For decades in Hollywood, the patented Technicolor film process was different from every other color film technology, and it reined supreme. Motion pictures shot in Technicolor were brighter and more vivid than any other process. They made real life look like the Land of Oz.

The quality came at a price. Like Kodachrome, Technicolor used black-and-white film, adding stable, rich color dyes later during processing and printing. This made the shooting process difficult. The film was “slow,” requiring so much light on set that actors sometimes got eye damage. They certainly sweat a lot.

Technicolor cameras ran three separate strips of black-and-white motion picture film through the camera at the same time. A “beam splitter” separated the light into red, green, and blue, directing one color only to each of the three strips of film. The cameras were heavy and needed to be sound-baffled during a shoot.

Striking the final print for projection required precision machines that could line up each of the three strips of film in perfect registration to lay down cyan, yellow, and magenta dyes. It took precision-machining, skill, time, and money. That’s why the process was abandoned when cheaper, easier all-in-one color motion picture film became available.

But that’s also why the Technicolor process was so beloved that songs were written about it. This is from the Technicolor production "Silk Stockings" with Janis Paige singing to Fred Astaire.

3. Air-cooled Volkswagen engines

I went outside to play in 1978 and came upon my stepfather on his knees behind the 1967 beige VW bug that was our family car. “God — son of a *@^%!” he cussed as the engine cranked and cranked and wouldn’t fire up. He was trying to gap the points in the distributor, a job he was never good at. I learned to do it decades later from a classic butch lesbian, and it didn’t seem that hard to me.

My stepdad was doing this because that’s what normal people did in those days. You tuned up your own car. Most dads had a toolset and the know-how to do car maintenance at home. Repairs were less expensive, and you didn’t have to have a computer technician “scan” your engine to figure out what the bloody computer thought was wrong with it.

Sure, the old VWs were simple and had few features. The heaters were so bad that winter driving required an ice scraper for the inside of the windscreen. The bugs were tiny compared to modern cars, but you could get a surprising amount in there if you were clever.

Sure, they were light (some people call them death traps), but that was great when my mother went off a snowy road in Upstate New York, and four boys from the local college fraternity just picked it up out of the ditch and set it back on the road.

I’d give anything to hear that musical, metallic tinkle of the exhaust pipes on America’s roads today.

4. The Chrysler Slant Six engine

If you know, you know. America never built a more durable engine than the famous Chrysler Slant Six. The engine got its name because the designers tilted it 30 degrees to fit the block under the lower, sleeker hoods that became stylish in the early 1960s.

This six-cylinder may not have had the raw horsepower of a big block V8, but it produced a surprising amount of oomph for its size, and it was an engine that never died. If you’ve owned one, you can hear the sewing machine-like purr and tick in your mind.

We had two Slant Six-powered family cars growing up. As an adult, I’ve had a Dodge Dart and a Plymouth Belvedere powered by this motor. There’s no better way to spend an afternoon than adjusting the valves on a Slant Six while it’s running. I miss how easy it was to work on these engines, made in the days when you could move around under the hood and adjust something without taking off 15 components just to get enough room to put a finger in the engine bay.

There will be Slant Six engines running in good health long after I’m dead, just as God intended.

RELATED: My 1966 Plymouth Belvedere let her 225 Slant-6 do the talking

NBC/Getty Images

5. Customer service

This is a social technology that needs to make a comeback. My first jobs as a teenager were running the cash register at a Wegman’s grocery store and bringing burgers to tables at a Big Boy restaurant. Friendly, efficient customer service was mandatory. It was expected by every customer and every employer.

You were to greet customers with a friendly hello and an offer to help. Smiles were either compulsory or strongly encouraged. If a customer needed to find an item, you found it for them and walked them over to the right aisle.

What do you get today when you walk into any retail store? Dead-eyed, silent stares from any staff younger than 35. Need to find a pipe fitting in a big store like Lowe’s? Try asking. You’ll get, “Um ... a what? If we had any, they’d be, like, over there,” as “Jonas” waves in a northeasterly direction.

Surprisingly, a young clerk at my local McDonald's reminded me of the good old days of customer service last week. Like so many places, McDonald's is making its restaurants hostile to humans. In addition to the ugly, gray, brutalist “updated” architecture, the lobbies are crammed with touch-screen kiosks, while the staffed registers have been reduced to one or two maximum. As recently as 15 years ago, McDonald's had a reputation for employing staff that were neater, tidier, and friendlier than the competition.

That’s gone now — except for this one young man at my local McD's. I walked past the kiosks and up to the register, expecting to be ignored for five minutes as is now McDonald’s standard. “Jeff” was about 22. His shirt was tucked in. He was neatly groomed. He smiled at me and said, “Welcome to McDonald's; how are you today?” He meant it. He was looking me in the eye. I was so pleasantly surprised I thought I was dreaming, and I made a point to thank him for being human and polite.

The other day, I saw this old early '80s commercial for McDonald’s Shamrock Shake. Take a look, and try not to tear up. If you’re 35 or under, you probably think the chipper and upbeat tone looks “fake.” You may not believe anyone ever acted that way. You might even find this level of cheer “cringe.”

Well, it was like that. I was there. And I want it back.

Start-stop was just hit by the EPA. Now comes the real test.



On the latest episode of "The Drive with Lauren and Karl," Karl Brauer and I talk about a feature drivers almost universally dislike: start-stop technology.

You know the feeling. You pull up to a light, the engine shuts off, and for a split second you wonder whether the car just stalled. Then it lurches back to life when traffic moves again.

This is not a beloved convenience feature. It's not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another.

Automakers have spent years smoothing it out, but that hasn’t changed the basic problem. Most drivers still don’t like it. And now, with federal greenhouse gas rules being rolled back, there is a real question hanging over the industry: Will start-stop finally disappear?

This is one of those rare automotive issues on which regular drivers and enthusiasts agree. People neither want nor trust this technology. And many resent being forced to pay for something that was added mainly to satisfy regulations rather than improve the driving experience.

Fuel me once

Start-stop did not spread through the market because drivers demanded it.

It spread because automakers were given a fuel-economy benefit for installing it under federal rules tied to corporate average fuel economy — CAFE standards. In practical terms, the feature helped manufacturers squeeze out regulatory compliance on paper by shutting the engine off at stops.

That may look efficient in a spreadsheet. It looks very different in real traffic.

The problem is that traffic is not clean or predictable. It is constant stop-and-go movement, with drivers creeping, hesitating, inching forward, braking, and accelerating again.

As our guest Mike Harley points out, driving is analog. Those in-between moments — when you are not sure whether traffic is actually moving — are exactly where the system is intrusive and out of sync.

Light-bulb moment

Drivers worry about wear on the starter, wear on the engine, and long-term reliability. Whether every concern is equally justified, the perception problem is real.

Many drivers believe the system adds strain and complexity to a vehicle they are already maintaining at significant cost.

Karl makes the point bluntly. He compares it to the old incandescent light bulb: The moment of greatest strain is when it is first turned on. His argument is that starting the engine repeatedly creates the same kind of wear event over and over again.

That’s a simple way to understand why the feature bothers people.

Consumers are already dealing with high repair costs, expensive electronics, and rising replacement part prices. A system that repeatedly shuts down and restarts the engine does not seem like a benefit. It is one more thing that could break.

And that’s where the frustration really sets in.

Drivers are told the system is there for efficiency. But if it contributes to more wear, more service visits, or more expensive repairs, the cost falls on them — not on the regulators who pushed the standard.

As I have reported previously, mechanics consistently point to increased strain on starters and batteries — even with reinforced components.

RELATED: Start-stop stiffed: EPA kills annoying automatic engine shutoff

Smith Collection/Gado/Saul Loeb/Getty Images

Hesitant to change

I reached out to multiple automakers after hearing that these rules were being reconsidered.

The response was revealing.

Brand after brand gave essentially the same answer: 2026 models will keep start-stop for now, and they are still evaluating what to do with 2027 vehicles.

In other words, even with the regulatory ground shifting, nothing has changed yet on the showroom floor.

That tells you two things.

First, automakers know the system exists because of regulation, not because customers love it. Second, they are still cautious about changing course until they are sure the rules are fully settled.

That caution makes sense from the manufacturer side. But from the consumer side, it means drivers may be stuck with a feature they dislike for longer than expected.

Regulatory logic

One reason start-stop has become such a useful example is that it shows what happens when policy priorities move ahead of consumer experience.

On paper, the feature looked like an easy win. It improved regulatory averages, gave automakers a compliance tool, and let officials claim environmental progress.

But in the real world, drivers are the ones living with the result. They are the ones restarting the engine every time traffic creeps forward. They are the ones shutting the system off manually every time they get in the car. They are the ones paying if extra wear shows up later.

That gap between regulatory logic and everyday driving reality is exactly why this feature has become so unpopular.

Full stop?

It might end — but probably not overnight.

Automakers have already built the systems into their current vehicle architectures. Many are not going to rip them out immediately. But if the regulatory credits tied to start-stop truly disappear, the business case for keeping it becomes weaker.

That matters because there was never much of a consumer case to begin with.

This is not a beloved convenience feature. It's not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another. If anything, it can push buyers away — especially when it cannot be permanently disabled.

And that may be the feature’s biggest weakness. Consumers tolerated it because they assumed they had no choice.

A simple question

Drivers have been complaining about start-stop for years, and not because they resist change. They dislike it because it interrupts the driving experience, creates distrust, and solves a regulatory problem more than a consumer one.

The rules that justified the feature are starting to shift. The technology itself hasn’t gone anywhere — yet. But for the first time, automakers may have a real opportunity to ask a simple question: If customers don’t want this, why are we still building it?

And if they listen, start-stop may finally become a case study in what happens when consumers win one back.

You can listen to the full episode of "The Drive with Lauren and Karl" featuring Mike Harley below:

Comedian Mark Normand crushes woke studio execs who wanted Muslim joke removed: 'On one condition ...'



Stand-up comedian Mark Normand believes in making fun of everyone, equally.

When asked about his latest Netflix special, Normand said he wanted to be "inclusive," meaning he wanted to make fun of people from all walks of life.

'I want you to admit on this call that they're a dangerous people.'

Normand told podcaster Shannon Sharpe recently that he gave "equal opportunity" mockery to every group, including "trans, Mexican, black, gay, Muslim, everyone."

It was one of those specific groups that executives confronted Normand about and wanted it removed from his hour-long set. The comic revealed a phone call he received from top brass recently, and while most would assume he was referring to Netflix — given that his "None Too Pleased" special was just released on the platform — a Normand voiceover told audiences multiple times it was actually Hulu he had the conversation with.

On the podcast "Tuesdays with Stories," the New Orleans native recalled, "About a week ago or two weeks ago, they said, 'Send us a couple jokes you like. We'll chop them up and use that as promo on social media.'"

A week later, representatives allegedly asked the comedian to have a conference call, which he was not looking forward to because it's "18 Jews on there with a speakerphone and my Jews," Normand joked with co-host Joe List.

"They go, 'Yeah, we got some bad news there. We reviewed the special again. We'd like to take out the Muslim joke.'"

Normand explained that staff told him that the last time "a comic did a Muslim joke," they got bomb and death threats. But the 42-year-old said he refused to take it out.

RELATED: Comic's hellish Ellen DeGeneres gig: How one word made her blow her top

"I like the joke. It kills. It's a hot joke," Normand said, adding, "And you know, no one touches 'Muzz,'" referring to Muslims.

The comic said he fought for his joke, telling the platform, "You approved it. Now you're going back."

The platform allegedly then focused its battle on not removing the joke from the special itself but rather getting Normand to agree that it would not appear in social media promotions. The platform apparently believed social media was where most of the turmoil and backlash spawns from, not from people actually watching the special.

In response, Normand then gave the reps an ultimatum:

"OK. I don't love it, but OK. I will take it off on one condition," he recalled saying. Normand then said he told those on the call that he would only approve the social media plan if they admitted Muslims are dangerous.

"I want you to admit on this call that they're a dangerous people. And they were like, 'What? No. What, are you crazy?' And I'm like, 'You got to admit it, or I'm keeping it, or I'm posting it.'"

Normand said he could hear the commotion through the phone, until he was eventually told they would not adhere to his request, chiefly because it's "offensive."

That's when Normand called out the studio's hypocrisy.

RELATED: 'There's supposed to be freedom of speech': 'Saturday Night Live's' Kenan Thompson says movie studios suppress edgy comedians

Photo by Valerie Terranova/Getty Images for Bob Woodruff Foundation

"That's what the call is!" Normand remembered. "You're calling about this, and I just need you to say it out loud."

Remembering his phone call had Normand up in arms on the recent podcast, as he mocked the executive class for "signaling" about their beliefs but not standing behind them.

"You can say, 'Hey, I love this group.' But then you don't live near them. You know, we're all talk. We're all signaling. We're all virtuous, but you don't actually act that way."

"So they admitted it," Normand said to his surprise; and while he did reveal he was "half joking" when he made his request, the comedian had a good time getting "a group of HR homos" to say, "All right, they're dangerous. We'll see you later," before hanging up the phone.

As for which platform Normand spoke to, Netflix did not respond to a request for clarification; Hulu did not reply either. Normand seemingly had one special on the latter platform, "Out to Lunch" (2020), but it appears to no longer be available.

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