Clothing should be fun



I do a lot of things for work. I take photos, I take videos, I write stories, I write columns, I write about style, and I write about life.

I also help guys dress better. Officially it’s called style advising, but down to brass tacks, it means me helping guys get clothes they are happy with. Helping them get rid of the junk that sits in their closet that they never wear and get into clothes that make them look, and feel, their best.

Exercising creative control in the physical space feels good in a way that’s deeper than exercising the same kind of creativity in the digital space.

It’s one of the most rewarding things I do. I know lots of guys dismiss the importance of clothes, but they do so at their peril. Our clothes really do have a huge impact on our psychological state. They can make us pretty unhappy or pretty happy.

Ready to wear

Does that make us "superficial"? No. It’s an acknowledgment of the fact that what we wear represents who we are to others —and to ourselves. If you aren’t happy with how you present yourself, you aren’t going to be happy with yourself. It’s that simple.

So I take personal satisfaction from watching a guy transform his wardrobe over the course of a year or two. What's particularly satisfying is observing how his attitude toward clothing changes as he overhauls his closet.

The process usually starts with a pragmatic interest in not looking like a slob. Achieving a baseline presentability eliminates any negative attention slovenly dress attracts. From that point he may start to notice that looking a little more "put together" actually attracts positive attention. And once he starts to experience the fruits of dressing decently in public, he's ready to start enjoying his clothes.

This means he's comfortable and confident enough that he no longer sees dressing himself as a test to get "right," but as an opportunity for personal expression and creativity. Clothes finally become what they're meant to be: fun.

Or as a client deep into his own wardrobe revamp recently told me, “I’m just blown away by how fun this stuff can get.”

What a difference in attitude and mindset. A realization like that is generally a sign that a certain kind of psychological transformation has been completed.

RELATED: Corduroys: The perfect winter trousers

Making the man

I'm aware that the word "fun" may connote something shallow or frivolous — and in some respects clothing can be both. But the pleasure we derive from clothing also derives from its deeper meaning: the way it reinforces the eternal forms of man and woman, emphasizes our dignity as human beings made in the image of God, and reflects our culture, values, and even religious beliefs.

Remember the pastel cars of the 1950s? It’s hard to believe it, but there was a time when when cars weren’t only black, gray, or white. There was a time when cars were fun. Well, it’s the same thing with clothes. If you really look at the stuff the guys were wearing back in those old movies, they were actually having much more fun than the guy who wears dark jeans, a black T-shirt, and a gray hoodie in 2025. Coming to the final realization that clothes should be fun is actually a kind of returning to tradition.

Creative control

The thoughtfully designed, personal interior of your home feels more welcoming than an airport terminal. A carefully cultivated garden is more beautiful than an expanse of artificial turf. And a well-fitting and harmonious combination of shirt, jacket, and trousers is more flattering than a prison-like monochrome sweatsuit.

There’s also a peculiar psychological benefit to embracing clothes as a domain of fun. Exercising creative control in the physical space feels good in a way that’s deeper than exercising the same kind of creativity it in the digital space.

In our screen-dominant era, the experience of joyfully controlling your personal environment is humanizing and refreshing. It’s good to like how you look and know that you are the one responsible for it. It feels like we are actually doing something rather than just moving pixels around.

Of course, it goes without saying that not all fun is good fun. We know that’s true about all sorts of stuff in life. Many a bad decision sure was fun at the time. So it goes with the temporary thrill of donning stupid neon graphic T-shirts, grotesque Crocs, alien-green sweatpants printed with pizza motifs.

Many men today begin their style journey as overgrown children who have enjoyed this "bad" kind of fun for most of their lives: the dumb T-shirts and the stupid shoes. But then they decide to grow up, and after working through their wardrobe, they come to understand that these classic clothes are not just good for the soul or society. They are fun, and they are the right kind of fun, the kind of fun that edifies and enriches us.

It's the testosterone, stupid!



It was with great interest that I read Matthew Gasda’s latest essay, on the state of men in 2025, “Masculinity at the End of History.”

Gasda has a lot of things to say that are germane to my new book, "The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity" (out December 16), not least of all whether America — and indeed the Western world as a whole — exhibits what could be called a “crisis of masculinity" in the first place.

We have reams of data showing what can only be described as a civilizational decline in testosterone levels, a decline that may have no parallel in history.

There are plenty of observers — writers, social scientists, journalists, politicians, celebrity psychologists — who think so.

A crisis in need of a crisis

Gasda disagrees. In fact, he believes the absence of a crisis is precisely what’s ailing America’s young men. Men need crises in order to be men. Without crises, their mettle isn’t tested, they have no higher aspirations to direct themselves toward, and so they fall into a listless state, an aimless state, a kind of suspended adolescence.

Porn. Pot. Video games. Social media. Processed food. Logging on and dropping out. We all know what it looks like.

“Masculinity is desperate for a crisis,” Gasda writes in the opening paragraphs of his essay.

It is docile, unsure, and formless. At most, it is at the germinal phase of crisis, lacking a catalytic agent to propel it to its full-blown state, which at least can be registered and reckoned with. After all, crisis implies that something is happening, that something is at stake. The uncatalyzed proto-crisis, or the noncrisis, of American masculinity is repressed, unexpressed, yet omnipresent.

It’s a typical literary switcheroo — Gasda is a playwright, after all — but he’s not wrong. Nor is he the first to say that what men really need is a crisis — read: something extraordinary — to give full form to their potential.

Declaring 'war'

Back in 1910, the pragmatist philosopher William James, brother of the novelist Henry, wrote an essay called “The Moral Equivalent of War.” A committed socialist and pacifist, James nevertheless regretted the march of progress and with it the (apparent) decline of war, because he recognized war’s power to form young men and inculcate in them the highest possible virtues. War teaches men to subordinate themselves and their needs to those of the collective, to pursue a higher goal, and, if need be, to give their lives for it. War teaches men courage, service, self-sacrifice, stoicism, and patriotism, and all of these things are necessary for a properly functioning nation in peace.

But war is also a terrible, terrible thing — and it was rapidly becoming much worse, though just how much worse James could not have foreseen. What we need, James argues, is a “moral equivalent” of war, a substitute that could teach men the same lessons without the enormous destructive cost.

James’ proposal is quite clever: Rather than a war against each other, we need a war with nature. Young men should be enlisted into a national struggle to conquer and tame nature and to revolutionize the means of production. Send boys off to build railroads and skyscrapers and ships, and they’ll return as men, ready to lead families and the nation.

Manufacturing manhood

This isn’t too different, actually, from what Gasda advocates in his new essay, when he says a national project in which all or many men could participate might be a great spur to masculine revival.

If the objective of America in the years ahead is to reclaim global leadership in industrial production, that is, in the making of things in the real-world economy, as opposed to just in the realm of bits and pixels, then new avenues for masculine exertion, discipline, creativity, and camaraderie may arise from such a project.

There’s much to like in Gasda’s essay and much to agree with. He’s right about how the breakdown of communities and the loss of tradition have hindered the transmission of masculine ideals across the generations. He’s right about the need for rites of passage to confer status on men. Countless anthropological studies have shown the crucial role, in virtually every kind of society except our own, of tests of courage and fortitude at key moments in life, and psychologists have demonstrated how pain and trauma bond people together and provide a sense of shared identity.

He’s also right to argue that Americans must “historicize” masculinity. That is, they must understand its peculiar focus on strenuous exertion and relentless self-making in its particular historical context: a masculine ideal developed in conflict with a frontier, both the physical frontier of western expansion and the social and moral frontiers of a new national identity.

And he’s right, obviously, that we live in an age that’s fundamentally hostile to expressions of masculinity and that we can’t simply return to the past and past ideals, as so many simple-minded critics of the modern world, especially on social media, seem to believe.

That’s all to the good. But there are also serious problems.

No country for men

For one thing, it’s not clear just how much American men really could get behind a drive to, in Gasda's words, “reclaim global leadership in industrial production.”

If America does return to industrial pre-eminence, most if not nearly all manufacturing is going to be high-tech and automated — hardly the kind of gigantic Soviet five-year plan that could simply swallow up millions of men and give them jobs in factories or even give them jobs at all.

It's not just manufacturing that is on the verge of making human labor largely a thing of the past. Whole swaths of industry and even white-collar fields are undergoing the same revolutionary changes. Librarians and lawyers and proofreaders and doctors will be replaced by AI and large language models too.

The testosterone decline

A far graver problem, from my perspective, is that like the vast majority of the so-called “crisis of masculinity” literature that he derides, Gasda fails to take seriously, or even acknowledge, the biological changes that are throwing men’s masculinity into doubt — in particular, a headlong decline in testosterone, the master male hormone that’s responsible for making men men and not women.

Testosterone is not just responsible for sexual differentiation — for the physical characteristics that define boys, beginning in the womb and proceeding through infancy and the teenage years into adulthood — but it also governs male mood, motivation, libido, and even things like political attitudes.

Although we should be careful not to say testosterone determines political views, social psychology experiments reveal that a testosterone boost will make a man more likely to defend his position even when he’s outnumbered by people who disagree with him; it will make him more likely to continue fighting against a much stronger opponent; it will make him more accepting of hierarchy and inequality; it will make him more generous to his in-group — his own people — and more aggressive toward his out-group — potential enemies.

In short, testosterone and its effects are complex, but they work in ways that obviously tend toward behavior we associate with traditional masculinity. The less of it men have, the less masculine they become, as a basic rule.

Aggressively overlooked

Open a best-selling book like Richard Reeves’ "Of Boys and Men," head to the index, and look for “testosterone,” and you’ll find a poverty of references. Reeves talks about testosterone for just a few pages, but only to dispel the notion that boys “are their hormones,” meaning boys aren’t doomed to be aggressive because they have more testosterone (pop science’s “aggression hormone”) than girls. That’s it. Apparently, biology just isn’t important when we’re talking about the serious problems with men today.

It’s a strange oversight. We have reams of data showing what can only be described as a civilizational decline in testosterone levels, a decline that may have no parallel in history. We know what this decline entails, and if we don’t, we really should try to find out.

RELATED: All-natural tallow: Everything your skin needs — without the hormone disruptors

North Idaho Tallow Company

Compelling evidence

The first real herald of a civilizational decline in testosterone levels was the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, a gold-standard double-blind controlled study of men in the Boston area. The study took place over a period of around 20 years, from the end of the 1980s to the early 2000s. Men of all ages were selected at random and given a battery of tests at regular intervals. When the testosterone data was finally analyzed in 2007, it showed testosterone levels were declining year over year at a rate of about 1%.

That might not sound like much, but over a period of 20 years, that’s 20%, or one-fifth. On a longer timeline, say 50 years, that’s half of all testosterone — gone.

Researchers in other countries, including Finland and Israel, wanted to see whether the same trend was happening in their countries. In Finland, where male reproductive parameters are generally better than in the U.S., the researchers believed the Boston trend would not be replicated. Guess what? The trend was actually worse, and the researchers showed it was taking place over a much longer period of time. The results of the MMAS were replicated in Israel, too, and in other American studies.

Quantifying maleness

It’s hard to quantify exactly how many men have low testosterone, in large part because nobody agrees on exactly how little testosterone counts as low. Ask one doctor and he’ll give you one figure; another will tell you it’s half or double that amount.

Symptomology is generally the best way to go looking for low testosterone, and what we see, everywhere we turn, is men who look and behave like they have low testosterone.

In Japan today, there are millions of hikikomori, or extreme social recluses — young men who simply refuse to participate in society. They hide themselves away at home, often with their parents, and play video games, eat junk food, and just “rot,” to use a current term.

At least one expert believes there may be as many as 10 million hikikomori, in a nation of 120 million people — that’s one in 12 people. Unsurprisingly — to me at least — research has shown young Japanese men are at significantly greater risk of becoming hikikomori if they have low testosterone.

America has its hikikomori too, although they aren’t called that. Maybe as many as 6 million, by some estimates.

Some of them congregate in special subforums on the website Reddit, like r/lowT, where they discuss what it’s like to be a man with low testosterone: how they have no motivation, no libido, can’t sleep, can’t get an erection, are developing gynecomastia — man boobs — and are overweight and anxious all the time.

Many of these men also describe the miraculous effects of increasing their testosterone, more often than not through a doctor’s prescription of testosterone in gel or injectable form.

Spermageddon?

What’s even more worrying about this decline is that it’s part and parcel of a broader decline in reproductive health parameters among men.

This isn’t a surprise: If men’s testes aren’t functioning properly and producing enough testosterone, they’re unlikely to be producing enough of other important things either. Sperm counts and sperm quality — a measure of sperm’s ability to swim properly and do their job — are declining so rapidly that one expert, Professor Shanna Swan, is predicting a “spermageddon” scenario, in which humans are unable to reproduce by natural means.

Swan made this the subject of a 2021 book, "Count Down." Simply by extrapolating the data for sperm-count decline, Swan has shown that by around 2050, the median man will have a sperm count of zero. One half of all men will produce no sperm at all, and the rest will produce so few that they might as well produce none, because they won’t be able to get a woman pregnant, try as they might.

What’s causing these changes? It’s lots of different things, a whole range of lifestyle factors — lack of exercise, smoking, bad diets, poor sleep, stress — but also widespread exposure to harmful chemicals known as “endocrine disruptors,” for their negative effects on the body’s hormonal (endocrine) system.

From low-T to trans

When I say endocrine disruptors are everywhere, I mean it: They’re in the food, the air, the water, the clothes we wear, our bedding and furniture, the deodorants and fragrances we put on our bodies, the little scented trees we put in our cars, anything that’s made from plastic.

A significant proportion of these harmful chemicals directly or indirectly mimic the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with the body’s crucial hormonal balance (more testosterone and less estrogen for men, the opposite for women). This is a nightmare for both sexes. As well as reducing testosterone and fertility in men, exposure to endocrine disruptors can lead to genital abnormalities, weight gain, and metabolic issues and even certain kinds of cancer.

New research has linked exposure to endocrine disruptors during gestation to transgenderism. French boys exposed to the chemical diethylstilbestrol, which used to be given to mothers at risk of miscarriage, had a massively increased risk — perhaps as much as a hundredfold — of undergoing gender transition later in life. On paper, it was always plausible that exposure to endocrine disruptors should be linked to gender dysphoria, but since transgenderism is such a toxic issue politically, there’s been little desire, until now, to pursue research into the link.

In a very real sense, then, not only have we created a society where masculinity is ridiculed, dragged through the mud, and denounced as retrograde, we’ve also created one where the biological constituents of masculinity, its very building blocks, are under direct attack at the same time. It’s a complicated problem, and it’s viciously circular. Biology and society exist in feedback loops, with negative effects reinforcing each other, deepening the spiraling decline.

While Gasda, like William James before him, may be right that men need a crisis to bring out the best in them, the very real danger today is that when one finally comes, men won’t have the energy or enthusiasm or desire to put down the controller, stand up, and answer its call. And if that really is the case, testosterone — the lack of it — will be to blame.

Global chip dispute threatens auto production again!



The auto industry just can’t seem to get a break.

Just a few years out from COVID-era supply chain issues, a new computer chip shortage looms — and it's threatening manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Germany’s auto industry lobbying group VDA warns that carmakers are days away from having to shut down production — with the crisis possibly spreading beyond Europe to the U.S. within weeks.

Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months.

Here’s the issue: A Dutch chip maker called Nexperia got bought out by a Chinese company called Wingtech. The Trump administration then warned the Dutch that the Chinese were planning to move technology and production out of the Netherlands to China, so the Dutch government seized control of the company in September. China retaliated by prohibiting exports of Nexperia components that are made in China.

Voila: a brand new chip shortage.

Going Dutch

Nexperia may not produce the most advanced semiconductors, but it's an essential, high-volume provider of automotive chips that control electronic systems in modern vehicles. Without them, automakers cannot assemble cars efficiently.

On September 30, the Dutch government invoked emergency powers to take control of Nexperia, citing concerns about technology transfer to the company’s Chinese parent, Wingtech. This action followed months of U.S. pressure, including adding Wingtech to the U.S. Entity List (thus requiring a special license for an American company wanting to trade with it) and extending export control restrictions to subsidiaries owned at least 50% by China.

Dutch officials described the intervention as a defensive step to protect European technological assets and maintain supply-chain security. While day-to-day operations have been left to the Chinese owners, strategic decisions now fall under government oversight.

China calls

On October 4, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued export controls prohibiting Nexperia China and its subcontractors from exporting certain finished components and sub-assemblies. Automakers immediately expressed concern.

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association warned that production could be significantly disrupted. In the U.S., the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing nearly all major automakers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, urged a quick resolution.

“If the shipment of automotive chips doesn’t resume — quickly — it’s going to disrupt auto production in the U.S. and many other countries and have a spillover effect in other industries,” said CEO John Bozzella.

Supply-chain sequel

Modern vehicles rely heavily on electronics. Even models without luxury infotainment systems use Nexperia chips for electronic control units, powertrain management, safety systems, and more.

The disruption illustrates the fragility of the global supply chain. Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months. Even a small interruption can cascade, causing production delays, increased costs, or halted assembly lines.

Volkswagen and BMW reported that European production has not yet been impacted but said they were actively evaluating supply risks. In the U.S., exposure grows daily as plants rely on components sourced through European operations or shared supplier networks. Japan and other countries are already preparing for the negative impact.

Chips are down

The disruption could lead to short-term production slowdowns, with car plants in Europe, Japan, Korea, and potentially the U.S. reducing shifts, delaying vehicle launches, or postponing deliveries.

The need to find alternative suppliers, expedite shipping, or re-engineer components will increase costs, potentially raising vehicle prices for consumers.

Automakers are also likely to accelerate supply-chain restructuring, diversifying suppliers, resourcing production domestically, or redesigning vehicles to rely less on single-source components. If chip availability remains constrained, vehicles may arrive with fewer options or higher prices, impacting both buyers and dealers. This will not help a hurting industry.

Slow learners?

The Nexperia dispute highlights a growing reality: Automakers are navigating a geopolitical minefield. Governments increasingly treat technology and component supply as strategic assets, and decisions made halfway across the world can ripple through production lines almost instantly. It seems like the last chip shortage didn’t teach too many lessons.

Automakers must now consider geopolitical risk in procurement decisions, diversify suppliers, and maintain contingency stock. For consumers, vehicle availability, pricing, and features can be affected by forces far beyond local dealerships. Just like the last chip shortage, dealers raised prices to offset lack of supply and high demand.

In a world where electronics are as essential to cars as engines, supply-chain resilience is no longer optional — it’s critical. The Nexperia dispute is a warning sign, and for the auto industry, the stakes could not be higher.

The left wants to ‘reclaim’ the American flag; did they run out of lighter fluid?



In 2018, I was canvassing for a Republican candidate in a local race here in Portland, Oregon. A bunch of us were knocking on doors in the suburbs, seeking out Republicans by using data printouts that indicated which households were aligned with which party.

But those printouts were not always correct. People had moved. Or there were split households. Sometimes the homeowners had changed parties.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists.

As the election grew near and we shifted into maximum efficiency mode, our field boss sent out the word: Only go to houses flying the American flag.

That was the easiest way to focus on the most loyal Republicans. In 2018, the two most common flags you saw at people’s houses were the Pride flag (Democrats) and the Stars and Stripes (Republicans).

(The “We Believe in Science” signs had not yet proliferated.)

The funny thing was, we door-knockers were already doing that. I certainly was. I loved canvassing mostly because I liked meeting people. And the best people were always the ones with a big American flag hanging majestically beside their front door.

That was then, this is now

Fast-forward, and I’m at a recent No Kings protest. These protests had drawn huge crowds of leftists and progressives. I wanted to see for myself what these demonstrations looked like.

Imagine my surprise when the first person I encountered was a small elderly woman with a kind face and a big bundle of American flags.

These were 8" by 12" flags. The kind little kids might wave at a parade. She approached me and offered me one.

Naturally, I was confused. Was she a Republican? No, she wasn’t. She explained that these were Democrat flags now. The left was taking the flag back. Progressives were patriotic too!

They were? I thought to myself. Since when?

But I was in enemy territory, so I just smiled and took a flag. She showed me the little note that was attached. (Of course, the left can’t give you an American flag without adding their own anti-Trump commentary.)

The note said: “MAGA is trying to claim the American flag as exclusively their own. It is time we reclaim our flag. It is our national promise of freedom, and rightfully belongs to ALL Americans. Wave it proudly.”

I carried it with me as I watched the Trump derangement parade later that day. Multiple American flags were flown. By leftists.

RELATED: Yes, Trump’s flag-burning executive order is constitutional

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The red and the blue

This isn’t the first time the left has tried to steal symbols or images (or flags) from the right. They also stole the color blue.

Throughout Europe, in the 1800s, revolutionaries and malcontents were associated with the color red. Monarchs and aristocrats were represented by the color blue.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, “The Reds” overthrew the czar and started a civil war.

In China, when Chairman Mao Zedong instigated his own revolution in 1949, the flag, books, and symbols were always colored bright red.

This made sense. The color red suggests anger, revolt, defiance.

While blue — the color of the sky — is the color that indicates calmness, stability, order.

So what did the American left do as they consolidated their power in the late 1900s?

They switched the colors! With the help of their allies in the media, the left managed to STEAL the color blue from conservatives.

So now we call Republican states “red” and Democratic states “blue," which is the reverse of what the colors should be.

Never mind that the Democrats are still the party of chaos and upheaval. They wanted the prestige of the color blue. They want people to think of them as rational, calm, regal. So they changed the colors to favor themselves.

Capture the flag!

Regarding this theft of our flag: Does the left think we don’t remember five years ago? During the BLM riots, they were burning the flag all over the country.

In Portland, during the “Summer of 100 Riots,” they burned the flag as a nightly ritual.

Think back even further: The left has been burning the flag since the Vietnam War. It’s one of their most predictable political reactions. If anything happens that they don’t like, the American flag goes up in flames!

And aren’t these the same people who tore down the statues of our founders, who created that flag? Founders like George Washington?

In Portland, leftists toppled a large statue of George Washington. They left the statue right where it fell, with George Washington face down in the mud!

And these people think the American flag belongs to them? That they are now the patriots? That they should be anywhere near our beloved Stars and Stripes?

I don’t think so.

The good news is, it probably won’t work. Even if their strategists decide to embrace the flag, your average Joe anarchist won’t be able to help himself. They see an American flag, and they reach for their lighter.

But either way, we must reject this movement. Don’t let them have the flag. They don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. And they don’t love it. Not like we do.

John Leguizamo's 'The Other Americans' puts art before activism



“Do you know John?”

Yeah, LinkedIn. I know John Leguizamo.

LinkedIn

There is no way John Leguizamo knows me, but following the professional networking platform’s suggestion, I went ahead and sent an invitation to the actor/producer to connect.

I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.

I haven’t kept up with Leguizamo’s career. The only times I see him pop up now is when he’s complaining about the lack of Latino representation in show business. In fact, when it comes to complaining about representation, John Leguizamo is overrepresented.

'Liquor Store Gunman'

I read in Variety that early on in his career, Leguizamo “felt humiliated" playing the role of "Liquor Store Gunman" in Mike Nichols’ "Regarding Henry" (1991).

“I shoot this white guy [Harrison Ford],” Leguizamo explains. “It was like, ‘Oh my God, I’m perpetuating what they want to see,’ which is negative Latino images.”

It’s interesting that Leguizamo felt humiliated playing a Latino stereotype in "Regarding Henry" but managed to put that humiliation aside a couple years later to play a Latino stereotype in "Carlito’s Way." To be fair: Latino gangster Benny Blanco from the Bronx is a far more memorable character than Liquor Store Gunman. (What kind of last name is “Gunman” anyway? It ain’t Latin.)

When not at the mercy of other screenwriters and casting agents for roles, Leguizamo, a one-man-show-making machine, made a career out of performing his own Latino characters — which are not all necessarily negative images but certainly stereotypical in many respects. I mean, this is the same artist who made "Freak," "House of Buggin’," and "John Leguizamo’s Spic-O-Rama," which is not to be confused with generic Spic-O-Rama.

In an interview with "NBC Nightly News," Leguizamo declares, “We’re almost 20% of the population, I want 20% of the executives, 20% of the stories, 20% of the principal leads, then I’ll be quiet.”

Regarding 'us'

By “we,” of course he means Latinos — which includes me (even though, again, John doesn’t know me).

I doubt a perfectly equitable distribution of roles in show business along ethnic lines will quiet Leguizamo though. Even a world where an Al Pacino can’t swoop in to capture the leading Cuban and Puerto Rican roles will shut Leguizamo up.

Notice Leguizamo isn’t making this appeal for equity when it comes to other industries. Can you picture John Leguizamo showing up to a farm or construction site, demanding fewer Latinos — legal or undocumented — because they’re overrepresented?

So in the year 2025, we’re about 20% of the population, but looking back at the "Regarding Henry" year of 1991 — can you imagine if that were the movie that defined 1991! — Latinos were only about 9% of the population.

In the year of Benny Blanco from the Bronx, 1993, it jumped to about 9.5%. The further you go back, the fewer Latinos there are in the United States. To expect to see yourself represented when there are so few of you out there is quite something. Narcissistic, you might call it. Perfect for a talent like Leguizamo — who has made a lot of work for and about himself. Albeit a lot of good, original, entertaining, and funny work, I must say.

Hate-watch interrupted

Which brings me to his new play, "The Other Americans," at the Public Theater — which I only heard about because of Leguizamo’s media appearances that come across like he’s on a grievance tour.

So from a marketing standpoint, the Colombian American’s promotional shtick worked. I bought a ticket — but to hate-watch his play.

I don’t like going into a show expecting it to suck — let alone wanting it to suck. I tried to shake those intentions as best as I could. One thing I made sure not to do before the show was to read Leguizamo’s “note from the playwright” that’s printed in the playbill. I don’t know if it really made a difference, because once I stepped into the Anspacher Theater at the Public Theater, he'd won me over.

I had a seat center-stage in the second row. The set looked like an authentic house in Forest Hills, Queens, with a fenced-in backyard and even an above-ground pool that the neighbors could see from their second-story windows. If the Jeffersons had been Latinos, this is what moving on up from Jackson Heights would look like.

The change in neighborhoods is a punch line, as is the pool. One of the first arguments in the play is whether the above-ground pool is a real pool or not, because real pools are in-ground, you know. Yes, an above-ground is kind of trashy, but it still holds water.

RELATED: Bill & Ted share absurdist adventure in new 'Waiting for Godot'

Bruce Glikas/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Crowd-pleaser

Leguizamo plays Nelson Castro, a Colombian American laundromat owner, and from his first entrance onto the stage, I’m all in, whether it’s watching him mix a drink or listening to him curse into his cell phone — in English and Spanish. When his wife, Patti (played by actress Luna Lauren Velez), arrives, they’re soon dancing, like a stereotypical Latin couple. The audience loves it.

It feels like I’m on the set of a mult-cam sitcom. The live audience laughs, oohs and aahs. At one point in the play, an audience member caps one of Patti’s lines with what I think was a, “You go, girl!”

I remember Leguizamo saying he was out to create “a new type of American drama” — but what we’re presented with at first is something I could see running on network TV. They’d have to clean up the language and cut back on the Spanglish, but even the plot is perfect pilot material.

Complicated portrayal

Nelson and Patti are preparing for their daughter Toni’s wedding as well as the return of their son, Nick, who’s been gone for some time. Mami’s so nervous she keeps burning the sofrito!

During one of their dance passes in the living room, I notice a run in Patti’s stocking. That image — whether the wardrobe department meant for it to be there or not — has stuck with me.

It turns out their son is coming home after being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown — which his therapist attributes to his family not addressing the trauma he experienced when he was brutally beaten by a group of white boys his last year of high school.

The attack happened at one of his family’s ’mats. The perpetrators even tried to stuff him into one of the washing machines “to wash the brown off of him.” (I guess the racist white boys succeeded? Because the actor who plays Nick, Trey Santiago-Hudson, is rather pale-skinned.)

Nick is in pain and while Nelson wants a do-over with him, the Latin father is not equipped to deal with it. Imagine asking your son who was just released from a mental institution what he has to be anxious about?

It’s in these moments where Leguizamo really shines. He plays such a great dick! Although I don’t think “shines” is the right word for a performance that has so much darkness to it. Nelson is not just a flawed man — in many respects, he’s a wicked man.

The plot to "The Other Americans" is sowell-crafted that I don’t want to risk revealing too much, but in one exchange, a family member compares Nelson to Sisyphus of Greek mythology. It’s a setup to a perfect sitcom punch line, where Nelson assumes it must be a real Greek guy from Astoria. But while Nelson shares some traits with Sisyphus, I think he’s even more like Tantalus.

Who's 'we'?

In his note from the playwright, John Leguizamo writes:

I wanted to write a play about race, and I wanted it to be complicated. I didn't want it to be a morality play, but rather I wanted to show life as we Latino people experience it. We don’t always see the microaggressions, or the systemic road blocks in effect. Even though there's a subtle tokenism at work around us, we often witness the macroaggressions: those obvious, in-your-face type moments. We Latinos experience racism through poverty, the schools in which we are allowed to enroll, and the geographical areas in which we are packed. In New York City, we are equal to the white population, yet you never see us on the cover of newspapers and magazines.

There’s more to his note, but I think this bit above is worth addressing. Firstly, this “we” stuff has got to go. Latinos are not a monolith. I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.

Secondly, in the play Nelson is the one who blames “the system” (which is synonymous with racism) for his lot in life — for example, the failure of his laundromats. “The toxicity of the American dream” is another way I’ve seen it described. But as Nelson’s secrets are revealed, what becomes clear is that he, a tragic figure, is the one responsible for his and his family’s downfall.

The system — if there is one — has actually been very good to the Castros. Just like in real life, the system has been very good to Leguizamo.

With "The Other Americans," Leguizamo fails to make his political statement but succeeds in making a powerful piece of art. ¡Bravo, hermano! Please accept my invitation on LinkedIn.

Trump's SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?



President Donald Trump’s dropping another tariff on the auto industry.

Starting November 1, the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on all imported medium- and heavy-duty trucks, a dramatic escalation in the administration’s ongoing effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign-built vehicles.

The short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

This announcement sent shockwaves through global trade circles and Wall Street. According to Trump, the decision is rooted in national security and economic strength, not politics. But as with any sweeping trade action, there’s more under the hood than meets the eye.

Priced to move

While celebrating the immediate bump in automaker stock prices following the tariff announcement, Trump’s message was direct. “Mary Barra of General Motors and Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company just called to thank me. ... Without tariffs, it would be a hard, long slog for truck and car manufacturers in the United States.”

The president framed the move as a matter of economic sovereignty, arguing that domestic production capacity in critical industries, like heavy vehicles used in logistics, defense, and infrastructure, is essential to national security.

That message resonates with many Americans frustrated by decades of outsourcing and the hollowing out of domestic manufacturing. But it’s also raising concerns among global partners and major U.S. companies with deep supply chain ties abroad.

Winners and losers

The new tariffs target a wide range of vehicles: delivery trucks, garbage trucks, utility vehicles, buses, semis, and vocational heavy trucks.

Manufacturers expected to benefit include Paccar, the parent company of Peterbilt and Kenworth, and Daimler Truck North America, which produces Freightliner vehicles in the U.S. These companies have much to gain from reduced import competition and potentially stronger domestic demand.

However, for companies like Stellantis, which manufactures Ram heavy-duty pickups and commercial vans in Mexico, the impact could be costly.

Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, trucks assembled in North America can move tariff-free if at least 64% of their content originates within the region. But many manufacturers rely on imported parts and materials, putting them at risk of higher costs and tighter margins.

Mexico, the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the U.S., will be hit hardest. Imports from Mexico have tripled since 2019, climbing from about 110,000 to 340,000 units annually. Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland also face new barriers under the 25% tariff.

Industry pushback

Not everyone is excited about the tariffs — especially considering that the import sources for these trucks (Mexico, Canada, and Japan) are long-standing American allies and trading partners.

Industry analysts warn of supply-chain disruptions, potential price increases, and reduced model availability for both commercial fleets and consumers. Tariffs could also pressure U.S. companies to adjust production strategies, increase domestic sourcing, or even pass higher costs on to customers.

RELATED: Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

The politics of protectionism

This is not the first time a Trump administration has leaned on tariffs as an economic lever. During his previous term, tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods aimed to bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil. Supporters argue those policies helped revitalize key industries and encourage job growth. Critics countered that they raised costs for American companies and consumers alike.

Still, there’s no denying that tariffs remain one of Trump’s most powerful economic tools and one of his most politically effective messages. By positioning tariffs as a way to protect American jobs, the policy appeals to workers and manufacturers across the Rust Belt, a region that will play a pivotal role in the upcoming election.

Short-term pain

For the U.S. trucking and logistics sectors, the short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

Truck leasing and rental companies that rely on imported chassis and components may see their operating costs rise. Meanwhile, domestic truck makers could ramp up production, potentially benefiting U.S. suppliers and job growth in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.

The challenge will be whether domestic manufacturers can meet demand quickly enough without triggering inflationary pressures in the commercial transportation market.

Long-term gain?

Trump’s framing of the tariffs as a “national security matter” echoes earlier policies aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical sectors, from semiconductors to electric vehicles. Advocates say this approach ensures that America can produce what it needs in times of crisis.

But opponents warn that labeling economic measures as “security” issues can backfire, alienating allies and inviting retaliation. European officials and trade negotiators in Canada and Japan are already signaling possible countermeasures if talks with Washington fail to yield exemptions.

Mind the gap

The real question now is how manufacturers will adapt. Companies may accelerate plans to localize assembly and parts production inside the U.S., while foreign brands could seek joint ventures or partnerships with American firms to skirt tariffs.

Consumers and fleets will likely see higher sticker prices for imported trucks and commercial vehicles as tariffs ripple through supply chains. That may also shift more buyers toward U.S.-built models, at least in the short term.

Ultimately, Trump’s move puts America’s industrial policy back in the driver’s seat. Whether it strengthens the economy or creates new trade turbulence will depend on how quickly domestic production can fill the gap left by imports.

President Trump’s 25% truck tariff is a high-stakes bet on American manufacturing dominance. It could fuel a resurgence in U.S. production or ignite new rounds of trade retaliation.

Either way, one thing is certain: The decision has already reshaped the conversation about what it means to build, and buy, American.

Horror show: 'The View' too scary for conservatives, boasts Behar



Talk about a booby prize.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) recently declared war on the GOP on several fronts, and instead of a trophy or plaque, she’ll get the honor of matching wits with those doyennes of derangement on "The View" next week.

The ever-present smile. The blazing hypocrisy. The fact that 'Escape from New York' is getting an all-too real sequel starting ASAP.

Apparently, Taylor Greene’s recent ideological about-face makes her the perfect conservative foil on a show that tends to veer — if not careen — left.

Co-host Joy Behar recently griped that the show can't book right-leaning guests because, "They're scared of us."

Sure, Joy. Just like I'm "scared" of the 8-year-old Minecraft zombies who'll be knocking on my door for Kit-Kats tonight.

Here's a trick to make "The View" more compelling — stop treating guests who don't agree with you like fun-size Snickers bars. It's OK to have more than one.

Pretty payday

Julia Roberts is a genius. Or at least, her agent is.

The Oscar winner isn’t as active in Hollywood as in her box office heyday, but she still convinced a movie studio to pay her $20 million for her to star in “After the Hunt.”

The Me Too-themed drama cast Roberts as a professor torn between a trusted colleague (Andrew Garfield) and a bright student (Ayo Edebiri), who claims said colleague sexually assaulted her.

The film has made just $9 million worldwide and is already fading after two weeks of release. The budget? A reported $80 million, including that hefty price tag for the erstwhile “Pretty Woman.”

Paying 1995 rates in 2025 — when even the most beloved Oscar-winner can't guarantee butts in seats? Well, Hollywood is the land of make-believe.

Billion-dollar baby

You first, Billie.

Androgynous crooner Billie Eilish is taking a bold stand against billionaires. The “Bad Guy” singer addressed a room full of rich, powerful people to accept an “innovator” award from the Wall Street Journal Magazine. Said room included mega billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, apparently.

She used the moment to lecture the ultra rich.

“Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a lot more money than me. ... If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties.”

Set aside the economic ignorance, the body shaming, and the fact that she’s a millionaire many times over. She just cut a gargantuan check to help defeat, check notes, "climate justice." Why not just go full Joker and set a mountain of cash on fire? At least she could write a song about it …

RELATED: 'The Naked Gun' remake is laugh-out-loud funny? Surely, you can't be serious

Don't mess with the Zohran

There’s nothing funny about the rise of Zohran Mamdani.

The future New York City mayor is a terror apologist, an anti-Israel zealot, and an economic illiterate. There’s more, but you get the picture. Still, political satirists should have a field day with Mamdani on so many levels.

The ever-present smile. The blazing hypocrisy. The fact that “Escape from New York” is getting an all-too real sequel starting ASAP.

Instead, comedians are standing down. Anyone shocked? A new study by Newsbusters shows that late-night comics are targeting everyone else in the crowded New York mayoral race save Mamdani.

“Only three out of 63 jokes were about the socialist front-runner,” the site tallied. And that doesn’t count comedian turned shill Jon Stewart comparing Mamdani to Jackie Robinson …

Kim K's moonshot

Reality stars say the darndest things.

It’s easy to poke fun at Kim Kardashian for her choice in suitors. That Kanye West pairing didn’t end well, did it?

Still, Ms. Kim is a savvy business person who transformed a sordid sex tape into a reality show empire. Just don’t ask her to teach a history class anytime soon.

Kardashian is co-starring with actress Sarah Paulson on the TV show “All’s Fair,” and apparently the two are quite chatty behind the scenes. Kardashian loves sharing her conspiracy theories with her co-star, including her belief that America never landed on the moon.

She pointed to a clip of Buzz Aldrin mishearing a question as part of her “proof.” In her defense, maybe she’s trying to recruit Candace Owens to her next reality show gig ...

'Fack' all

Comedy is truly on the comeback trail.

The woke mind virus is fading. Roasts are back in vogue. The recent “Naked Gun” reboot was funnier than anyone expected. Now, a new trailer for a “Downton Abbey” spoof looks like the year’s brightest surprise.

“Fackham Hall,” hitting theaters December 5, packs more laughs in its two-minute running time than some mainstream comedies. The physical shtick is priceless, and the oh, so stuffy “Downton Abbey” vibe begs for a good satirical swatting.

At this rate, even Jimmy Kimmel might make us laugh before 2025 ends.

Allie Beth Stuckey on 'Fox & Friends': Charlie Kirk 'was such an encourager of so many of us'



What made Charlie Kirk such a force to be reckoned with?

That was one of topics up for discussion Monday when BlazeTV's Allie Beth Stuckey joined "Fox & Friends" co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt and Griff Jenkins before headlining that evening's Turning Point USA tour stop at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

'He really was an anomaly. God just blessed him with amazing work ethic and persistence and energy.'

"He was so generous with his time," the "Relatable" host recalled, noting that the slain activist miraculously managed to balance traveling nonstop, raising a young family, scaling TPUSA into a national juggernaut, and igniting a movement that reached millions — all while still making time for others:

He could've been doing a million other very important things, but he would take the time every day to text his friends, to text his colleagues, to send Bible verses, to say, "Hey, keep going," "I saw this article," or, "I saw you talk about this topic. You did such a good job."

He was such a champion, such an encourager of so many of us, and that is going to continue to bless me for the rest of my life.

'Keep slugging'

Jenkins asked Stuckey what she anticipated seeing at the Baton Rouge TPUSA event, especially in the wake of LSU's Charlie Kirk tribute back in September.

"It makes me think of when we heard Charlie's widow, Erika, talk about, 'You have no idea what you've done,' and you hear Andrew Kolvet, Charlie's producer, talk about that he hopes that the TPUSA events are going to be bigger than ever before. Is that what you anticipate seeing tonight?" Jenkins asked.

"Oh, absolutely," Stuckey said.

And her instincts were spot-on.

The sold-out Baton Rouge event — hosted by the local TPUSA chapter — drew a massive 1,600 attendees, far exceeding expectations. Lines wrapped around the block, and doors opened early to accommodate the surging crowd of young conservatives eager to honor Kirk's legacy and rally in support of faith, family, and freedom. The vibe was electric and defiant, pulsing with patriotic fervor as chants of "USA!" and "Charlie Kirk!" erupted from a packed house.

Stuckey inspired and challenged the crowd with a powerful speech on "five of Charlie Kirk's most controversial truths," motivating students with Charlie's favorite phrase of encouragement: "Keep slugging."

'He really was an anomaly'

Earhardt told Stuckey she found it "amazing" to hear from so many people all that Kirk had done for them. "I'm hearing you say he would text you, encourage you," she marveled.

"He also had to fundraise. He also had a family. He was traveling. He was contacting so many people and really pouring into their lives. How did he balance it all? How did he have time to do it?"

“I have no idea,” was Stuckey's candid response.

"You know, I've joked a few times that, in true Charlie fashion, he is giving all of his friends and his team a whole lot of work. ... Gosh, it's taken at least a dozen of us to make up for Charlie's speaking engagements and all of the different obligations that he had on his show and everywhere," she laughed.

"He really was an anomaly. God just blessed him with amazing work ethic and persistence and energy because, of course, God knew that his time was tragically short. And he had a lot to accomplish, and he did."

In the end, Charlie didn't just create a movement — he multiplied one.

"Even though he was the center of it, it's far beyond him," Stuckey said.

The Charlie effect

And she's right. Since his tragic death, Charlie's American Comeback Tour, which was rebranded as This Is the Turning Point Tour to honor his legacy, has experienced an explosion in participation. Campus events see massive, exceeding-expectations turnouts. Thousands are left outside as arenas fill to bursting. Patriotic chants fueled by grief-turned-determination electrify the atmosphere.

Interest in TPUSA membership has also dramatically increased, with the organization receiving more than 120,000 requests to start local chapters since the founder's martyrdom.

The Charlie effect is real — and it's fueling a nationwide revival.

"He left a legacy that really multiplied, and that speaks to who he was as a person but also just where we are as a country right now. People have woken up, and people are ready to step off the sidelines and come into the arena, and I say let's go,” Stuckey urged.

​Red, white, and boo: Almost two-thirds of Americans now believe in ghosts



"I ain't afraid of no ghost."

Easy enough to say 40 years ago, when audiences delighted to the spectral pest control antics of Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Dan Aykroyd. You can't fear what isn't real, after all.

The show pioneered a tactic known as 'provocation.' This is when an investigator attempts to goad a spirit into manifesting by insulting it.

Things have changed. Since then, the proportion of Americans who believe in ghosts has surged 400%. Surveys indicate that nearly two-thirds of the population now hold supernatural beliefs, and 20% have reported seeing a ghost.

Entrepreneurial spirits

With roughly 50 million Americans purportedly having encountered a haunting, the business of ghost hunting has evolved into a profitable enterprise. It would appear that the invisible hand of the market really does exist.

As proof that even the ethereal cannot escape the iron law of supply and demand, paranormal tourism is booming. Millions of Americans now spend over $300 million on haunted attractions each year. You can satiate your gruesome desires by visiting Iowa’s Villisca Axe Murder House, where eight people, including six children, were murdered in 1912. For $430, anyone brave enough to take a whack at it can try to spend the night.

Ghost-hunting shows are scaring up unprecedented interest as well. YouTube, for example, has hundreds of paranormal-themed channels. One of the biggest is "Sam and Colby." With an average of 10 million views per video, the kids are among the most popular ghost hunters online. The two film themselves while visiting haunted locales across the United States. Freed from the limitations of conventional television, the videos are lengthy and typically unedited, offering a more immersive experience for their audience of 15 million subscribers.

There are compilation channels for those who don’t want to endure the deferred gratification of 90 minutes of shaky handheld videos and constant cries of, "What was that?"

Then there are channels like "Mind Junkie" and "Nuke’s Top 5," which brazenly monetize our endless appetite for not-so-carefully-vetted supernatural slop. One wonders if these shrewd content creators are also behind the "debunking videos" they attract. Nice business model, if so.

Tales from the clip

"Paranormal Caught on Camera," now in its ninth season on Discovery+ and the Travel Channel, can best be described as a reality show. From poltergeist activity to mysterious shadows roaming the woods, a panel of experts weighs in on supposed paranormal footage from around the world. Imagine "Ghostbusters" meets "America’s Funniest Home Videos" — with the approximate scientific rigor of both.

Psychologists say a prior belief in ghosts makes a person more inclined to perceive unexplained sounds and events as paranormal. The show’s presenters are clearly familiar with the research. They frequently use the term "energy" (which appears to function as a noun, verb, and adjective) and attribute every sound or camera jiggle to the spirit realm.

Ghost roast

"Ghost Adventures" is one of the longest-running and best-known of these types of shows. While the experts on "Paranormal Caught on Camera" are content to remain armchair investigators, aging goth heartthrob Zak Bagans and his crew actually go out into the field. Since 2008, they have traveled around the United States looking for paranormal phenomena. The format is simple: They arrive at an alleged haunted location, turn off the lights, hit record, and explore the building. What we get is a well-curated, finely edited spectacle.

The show pioneered a tactic known as "provocation." This is when an investigator attempts to goad a spirit into manifesting by insulting it. While this demonstrates a fortitude worthy of Ray Parker Jr. himself, it has never once worked over 300 episodes. The only scary thing that appears to be happening is a group of middle-aged men screaming in the dark about nothing in particular.

The truckload of pseudoscientific equipment these guys bring to the task separates them from your average amateur. A truckload of pseudoscientific instruments is used to add an element of objectivity. Particularly prized is the EMF meter, used to detect the electromagnetic fields ghosts apparently emit. This essential prop emits clicks and pings reminiscent of the motion trackers used to detect xenomorphs in the movie "Aliens." Unsurprisingly, there is no James Cameron-level tension here. Ninety-nine times out of 100, they’ve probably just found the fuse box.

RELATED: Halloween costumes for old people: 6 surefire rules for dressing up

Matt Himes

Phantom itch

Slick, polished, and carefully choreographed. It’s all very Hollywood. It comes as no surprise that the massive increase in belief in ghosts over the last 50 years coincides with the golden era of horror. Art imitates life. Many of these shows use the same strategies as your typical Hollywood special effects department.

So why are we watching these shows? "Ghost Adventures," now in its 28th season, has perfected the art of selling us fear. These shows give us what we want. We love to be afraid. A horror movie grants us the chance to live vicariously through the characters on the screen. A way to experience and navigate terror from the comfort of our couch.

Then there's another, more poignant, explanation. We believe in ghosts for the same reason that we believe in God. In the end, both ghost hunters and Christians are motivated by the same persistent yearning that has dogged us since the dawn of humanity: There's got to be something more than this.

'Farmer' George Clooney wouldn't last a minute with my family's sheep



George Clooney has it all. The villa on Lake Como, the Hollywood halo, the tequila fortune.

And now — apparently — a farm. He grows olives, you see. Presses them into artisanal oil. Talks lovingly about “the land.”

In Ireland, farmer suicide rates are among the highest in the country. In America, it’s even worse. Farming isn’t just lonely — it’s a daily battle against debt, drought, and despair.

It’s the sort of thing the lifestyle press laps up. The movie star who’s “gone back to nature,” barefoot among the groves, a rake in both senses of the word. But as someone raised on an actual farm in Ireland, I can’t help but laugh. Calling Clooney a farmer is like calling yourself a surgeon because you once removed a splinter with tweezers.

Knee-deep in muck

My father’s a real farmer. He’s the kind of man who measures days in chores, not hours. He’s out there in rain, shine, or two feet of snow, wrangling 100 cattle and 300 sheep with saintly patience. Starting at age 7, I spent 10 years doing the same thing. The man’s hands could sand a doorframe just by clapping. His back has carried more than hay bales. It’s borne the heavy burden of being taken for granted. Farmers feed everyone, yet everyone forgets them. They’re the engine of every economy and the punchline of every town.

The romantic idea of farming — what I call the “Clooney complex” — is built on Instagram filters and feckless fantasy. A celebrity buys a few acres, plants some lavender, adopts a goat named Aristotle, and suddenly it’s “sustainable living.” They wear linen shirts and wax lyrical about the “spiritual rhythm” of rural life, just before jetting back to L.A. in a jet that could single-handedly melt a glacier.

Meanwhile, the real farmer down the road is up at five, knee-deep in muck, coaxing a calf into the world in sideways sleet. The rhythm of real rural life sounds less like “peaceful simplicity” and more like an industrial power washer.

We don’t name our sheep. That’s something people who’ve never farmed don’t understand. When you’ve got 300 of the woolly little delinquents, sentimentality is a luxury you can’t afford. I’ve seen enough lambs die in winter to know why farmers are wary of names. We remember numbers. The birth tags. The weight. The cost of feed. The constant arithmetic of survival. Romanticizing farming is like romanticizing trench warfare — fine for those who've never experienced it firsthand.

Debt, drought, and despair

And yet, people love the image. The noble tiller of soil, weathered but wise, standing in a sunset, surrounded by his empire. They never show the invoices, broken fences, silage bills, oppressive environmental regulations, or the bank statements.

They don’t show the nights you lie awake wondering whether the mart price will rise or fall. They don’t show the hours spent alone, the silence broken only by the rattle of a gate or the cough of an animal on the way out. Farming is isolation dressed as independence. You’re your own boss, yes — but your employees are cows, and they never take a day off.

In Ireland, farmer suicide rates are among the highest in the country. In America, it’s even worse. Farming isn’t just lonely — it’s a daily battle against debt, drought, and despair.

Each season, costs climb higher: cement for sheds, grain for feed, diesel for tractors, even medicine for the herd. Profits shrink, pressure builds, and hope thins out like soil after too many harvests. American farmers are now three and a half times more likely to die by suicide than the average worker. The farm devours what it earns. It’s less a business than a benevolent parasite — you feed it in the hope it feeds you back.

RELATED: AI isn’t feeding you

Photo by Nikada via Getty Images

Learning from the land

But to the celebrity farmer, it’s a lovely way of life. Clooney can pose with his olives, Chris Pratt with his chickens, or "Top Gear" legend Jeremy Clarkson with his camera crew and call it “a return to roots.” Fine, let them have their fun. But real farming isn’t less a return than a sentence. It’s 70-hour weeks, constant pressure, and the faint but familiar panic of wondering what happens if you get sick. No stand-in. No understudy. Just you and the land, locked in an ancient marriage of necessity.

Don’t get me wrong — I love the land. There’s a holiness to it that city life can’t touch. I understand why people are drawn to it, even why they imitate it. But farming isn’t a hobby. It’s not therapy. It’s work in its rawest form — bone-deep, back-breaking, Sisyphus-like labor. And while actors can play at being farmers, farmers can’t play at being actors. When a calf’s stuck halfway out, the only thing rolling is your sleeves. There are no retakes.

If George Clooney wants to plant crops, fine. Let him. But I’ll believe he’s a farmer when he’s up at dawn to dig a drain, when his hands smell permanently of disinfectant. I’ll believe it when his holidays depend on the lambing schedule and not the film schedule. Until then, he’s just a gardener with glorious lighting.

Farming is a philosophy in itself. It teaches humility, patience, and a genuine appreciation for the good times. You learn to solve problems with what’s at hand — wire, hope, and plenty of profanity. It’s not glamorous, but it’s brutally honest.

So when I read about Clooney's olives, I smile. Until he has scraped muck from his boots with a stick, yelled at a stubborn sheepdog that won’t listen, and worked from first light to last, I’ll save my applause for the real ones: the men and women who work the land not for show, but for the soil itself. Owning a field doesn’t make you a farmer any more than starring in "The Perfect Storm" makes you a fisherman.