Don’t be seduced by AI nostalgia — it’s a trap!



I don’t often argue with internet trends. Most of them exhaust themselves before they deserve the attention. But a certain kind of AI-generated nostalgia video has become too pervasive — and too seductive — to ignore.

You’ve seen them. Soft-focus fragments of the 1970s and 1980s. Kids on bikes at dusk. Station wagons. Camaros. Shopping malls glowing gently from within. Fake wood paneling! Cathode ray tubes! Rotary phones! A past rendered as calm, legible, and safe. The message hums beneath the imagery: Wouldn’t it be nice to go back?

Human nostalgia, as opposed to the AI-generated kind, eventually runs aground on grief, embarrassment, and the recognition that the past demanded something from us and took something in return.

Eh ... not really, no. But I understand the appeal because, on certain exhausting days, it works on me too — just enough to make the present feel a little heavier by comparison.

And I don’t like it. Not at all. And not because I’m hostile to memory.

I was there, 3,000 years ago

I was born in 1971. I lived in that world. I remember it pretty well.

How well? One of my earliest, most vivid memories of television is not a cartoon or a sitcom. No, I’m a weirdo. It is the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973, broadcast on PBS in black and white. I was 2 years old.

I didn’t understand the words, but I sort of grasped the tone. The seriousness. The tension. The sense that something grave was unfolding in full view of the world. Even as a toddler, I vaguely understood that it mattered. The adults in ties and horn-rimmed glasses were yelling at each other. Somebody was in trouble. Before I knew anything at all, I knew: This was serious stuff.

A little later, I remember gas lines. Long ones. Cars waiting for hours on an even or odd day while enterprising teenagers sold lemonade. It felt ordinary at the time, probably because I hadn’t the slightest idea what “ordinary” meant. Only later did it reveal itself as an early lesson in scarcity and frustration.

The past did not hum along effortlessly. Sometimes — often — it stalled.

Freedom wasn’t safety

I remember my parents watching election returns in 1976 on network television. I was bored to tears — literally — but I remember my father’s disappointment when Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. And mind you, Ford was terrible.

This was not some cozy TV ritual. It was a loss of some kind, plainly felt. Big, important institutions did not project confidence. They produced arguments, resentment, and unease. It wasn’t long before people were talking seriously about an “era of limits.” All I knew was Dad and Mom were worried.

I remember a summer birthday party in the early 1980s at a classmate’s house. It was hot, but she had an awesome pool. I also remember my lungs ached. That day, Southern California was under a first-stage smog alert. The air itself was hazardous. The past did not smell like nostalgia. It smelled like exhaust with lead and cigarette smoke.

I don’t miss that. Not even a little bit.

Yes, I remember riding bikes through neighborhoods with friends. I remember disappearing for entire days. I remember my parents calling my name when the streetlights came on. I remember spending long stretches at neighbors’ houses without supervision. I remember watching old movies on Saturdays with my pal Jimmy. I remember Tom Hatten. I remember listening to KISS and Genesis and Black Sabbath. That freedom existed. It mattered. It was fun. But it lived alongside fear, not in its absence.

Innocence collides with reality

I don’t remember the Adam Walsh murder specifically, but I very much remember the network television movie it inspired in 1983. That moment changed American childhood in ways people still underestimate. It sure scared the hell out of me. Innocence didn’t drift into supervision — it collided with horror. Helicopter parenting did not emerge from neurosis. It emerged from bona fide terror.

And before all of that, my first encounter with death arrived without explanation. A cousin of mine died in 1977. She was 16 years old, riding on the back of a motorcycle with a man 11 years her senior. She wasn’t wearing a helmet. The funeral was closed casket. I was too young to know all the details. Almost 50 years on, I don’t want to know. The age difference alone suggests things the adults in my life chose not to discuss.

Silence was how they handled it. Silence was not ignorance — it was restraint.

RELATED: 1980s-inspired AI companion promises to watch and interrupt you: ‘You can see me? That’s so cool’

seamartini via iStock/Getty Images

Memory is not withdrawal

This is what the warm and fuzzy AI nostalgia videos cannot possibly show. They have no room for recklessness that ends in funerals, or for freedom that edges into life-threatening danger, or for adults who withhold truth because telling it would damage rather than protect.

What we often recall as freedom often presented itself as recklessness ... or worse.

None of this negates the goodness of those years. I’m grateful for when I came of age. I don’t resent my childhood at all. It formed me. It taught me how fragile stability is and how much of adulthood consists of absorbing uncertainty without dissolving into it.

That’s precisely why I reject the invitation to go back.

The new AI nostalgia doesn’t ask us to remember. In reality, it wants us to withdraw. It offers a sweet lullaby for the nervous system. It replaces the true cost of living with the comfort of atmosphere and a cool soundtrack. It edits out the smog, the scarcity, the fear, the crime, and the death, leaving only a vibe shaped like memory.

Here’s a gentler hallucination, it says. Stay awhile.

The cost of living, then and now

The problem, then, isn’t sentiment. The problem is abdication.

So the temptation today isn’t to recover what was seemingly lost but rather to anesthetize an uncertain present. Those Instagram Reels don’t draw their power from people who remember that era clearly but from people who feel exhausted, surveilled, indebted, and hemmed in right now — and are looking for proof that life once felt more human.

RELATED: Late California

LPETTET via iStock/Getty Images

And who could blame them? Maybe it was more human. But not in the way people today would like to believe. Human experience has never been especially sweet or gentle.

Human nostalgia, as opposed to the AI-generated kind, eventually runs aground on grief, embarrassment, and the recognition that the past demanded something from us and took something in return. Synthetic nostalgia can never reach that reckoning. It loops endlessly, frictionless and consequence-free.

I don’t want a past without a bill attached. I already paid the thing. Sometimes I think I’m paying it still.

A warning

AI nostalgia videos promise relief without effort, feeling without action, memory without judgment.

That may be comforting, but it isn’t healthy, and it isn’t right.

Truth is, adulthood rightly understood does not consist of finding the softest place to lie down. It means carrying forward what we’ve lived through, even when it complicates our fantasies.

Certain experiences were great the first time, Lord knows, but I don’t want to relive the 1970s or ’80s. I want to live now, alert to danger, capable of gratitude without illusion, willing to bear the weight of memory rather than dissolve into it.

Nostalgia has its place. But don’t be seduced by sedation.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on Substack.

Buc-ee’s gets rich by doing everything Wall Street hates



Buc-ee’s may be technically categorized as a “convenience store,” but for millions of Americans, it’s more like a roadside pilgrimage. No matter how big its new stores are, they remain packed. The chain has a fanatically loyal customer base, and it has become a destination for those not fortunate enough to have a Buc-ee's nearby.

What’s the draw? Buc-ee's has enormous restrooms that are immaculately clean, cheap gas with often more than 100 pumps, a kitschy-fun shopping experience, and exceptional food — including Texas barbecue and an in-house bakery. In addition, it’s heavily staffed with low-turnover, career employees.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

Buc-ee's is thriving by rejecting numerous destructive “best practices” currently embraced by corporate America and private equity.

Fortunately for Buc-ee's, it’s still privately owned by its founders, Arch Aplin and Don Wasek, whose business acumen came from running convenience stores and working directly with customers and employees. They weren’t poisoned by an elite business school education, where modern executives learn that customers are prey and employees are a pestilence whose compensation reduces executive bonuses.

The winning formula

The magic formula to Buc-ee's success is built on a very simple foundation: clean restrooms and cheap gas. It first developed its cult following in Texas by being a place you could always count on for a clean restroom while driving the interstates. Good candies, food, and pastries then added to the appeal.

Nowadays, the same foundation is in place: clean restrooms and cheap gas. But once a customer walks inside to use the restroom, a wonderland of food and products awaits. The food and merchandise are not necessarily cheap, but they’re high-quality, and many customers enjoy making those purchases as part of their Buc-ee's experience. But it’s still possible to visit Buc-ee's for gas and a potty stop without paying a premium.

Standing up to Wall Street

By contrast, Las Vegas tourism is down dramatically — in no small part because of the city's outrageous pricing. The old Vegas model of cheap buffets and affordable rooms to get people into the casinos was not unlike Buc-ee's lure of clean restrooms and cheap gas. But the Wall Street wizards now in control of Vegas have ditched the old model in favor of revenue-mining every possible moment of a visitor’s stay.

As Jeffrey Turner explained on his Substack, “The MBAs and data-crunchers at the corporate casino have installed Disneyland pricing into their models.”

Buc-ee's still understands the power of the previous business model that Las Vegas abandoned: Provide a high-quality “loss leader” — or two — to get the customers in the door, and then provide high-margin products that entice them to open their wallets.

For those who work at Buc-ee's, it’s more than a job — it’s a career. Buc-ee's doesn’t consider its staff to be “unskilled” labor who deserve near-minimum wages. Their excellent compensation results in lower turnover and better customer service. The food at Buc-ee's might be a little more expensive than at a nearby fast-food joint, but it’s of much higher quality and served by professional staff — things customers will gladly pay a premium for.

As I discussed in a recent column, revenue mining has become an all-too-common corporate business strategy these days, especially in private equity. Revenue mining exploits customers while slashing costs to the bone, shipping jobs oversees, firing veteran employees who know the business best, wrecking customer service, downgrading quality, and killing innovation. That pernicious strategy may briefly produce record short-term profits, but it also destroys customer loyalty and brand value.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

RELATED: Fear the beaver: How a gas station became a cult (and why you should consider joining)

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The famous Buc-ee's restrooms by themselves produce no revenue, and they occupy significant square footage. Its full-time staffers make about $40,000 annually simply to keep these restrooms clean. In other words, the restrooms are a loss leader, drawing customers in but producing no revenue. That’s anathema to private equity.

Private equity would slash the restroom maintenance, eliminate or outsource the cleaning crews, and decrease their square footage. Or maybe they’d try to charge admission to the restrooms. But they would undoubtedly kill the golden goose — the restrooms — and thus lose the golden egg that gets customers to the checkout registers.

A job sign outside a Buc-ee's in Alabama recently showed that several manager positions within a Buc-ee's pay in excess of $100,000 per year, and the store’s general manager can earn more than $200,000 per year. Wall Street or private equity would waste no time in slashing Buc-ee's employee head count and compensation, assuming it would increase the bottom line. But it wouldn’t; it would simply destroy the staffing that makes Buc-ee's success possible.

RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future

Photo by Tim Grist Photography via Getty Images

Private equity would also be aghast at the “lost revenue” from offering below-market gas prices. Estimates are that Buc-ee's sells about 400,000 gallons of gas per day. Just charging 5 cents more per gallon would bring in an additional $7 million annually, all things being equal.

But all things aren’t equal.

A success story worth copying

Buc-ee's sells such a high volume of gas because its prices are lower. Buc-ee's understands that a lower gross profit per gallon with higher volume produces more gross profit than lower volume at a higher price. But more importantly, those swarms of cars fueling up on inexpensive gas are full of people who stroll inside and purchase high-margin discretionary products. It’s a simple concept that is alien to rapacious financial wizards, but one that’s well understood by retailers on the ground.

Buc-ee's success is a refutation of prevailing business wisdom. May it serve as an example to the next generation of business leaders on the importance of developing a loyal customer base with abundant staff, career wages, great customer service, high-quality products, and an enjoyable customer experience.

Neocons are back — and they’re botching Trump’s Latin America policy



A quiet but dangerous conflict is brewing within President Trump’s foreign policy team — a battle between the true red America First voices who made his first term successful and the same old neoconservative ideologues who have derailed U.S. diplomacy for decades.

Heightened by the bombing of Iran, this clash made headlines again earlier this month. This time, it was over botched negotiations over the return of Americans currently held by the socialist Venezuelan government.

Marco Rubio’s hatred of Latin American socialism is clear, but that shouldn’t come at a strategic cost to our country.

Trump’s special envoy Richard Grenell, a realist to his core, was on the verge of brokering a deal that would have secured the release of imprisoned Americans in exchange for Chevron’s continued operations in Venezuela. It was classic Trump diplomacy: bold, transactional, results-oriented.

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened. The State Department made a much less attractive and watered-down proposal to repatriate 250 Venezuelan aliens in exchange for the American prisoners. The interests of the U.S. oil industry were completely ignored.

Wires were crossed, and the talks collapsed.

Two critical lessons

Two lessons are evident: The first and most obvious is that Grenell is responsible for talks with Venezuela and that he is the only U.S. figure Venezuela trusts — a point that shouldn’t be undermined.

The second is that Trump’s transactional diplomacy, represented by Grenell, works — when it’s allowed to. We’ve seen this with Steve Witkoff’s trips to the Middle East and the president’s own handling of NATO.

The Venezuelan government wants to negotiate with Grenell and Grenell alone — and for good reason. He speaks the language of leverage, not lectures. As special envoy, he has built a diplomatic channel that has delivered in the past. In January, for example, Grenell secured the release of six Americans, a great achievement.

RELATED: Biden did that? No, it’s Marco Rubio making gas prices skyrocket this time

Photo by PEDRO MATTEY/AFP via Getty Images

In contrast, Venezuela all but refuses to communicate with Rubio. They see him as persona non grata. His methods, based on intervention and blunt force, are bound to fail.

This is particularly true now that we live in a world where U.S. dominance is not guaranteed. And as the United States has isolated Venezuela, the Latin American nation has been pushed deeper into Beijing’s orbit.

Oil exports to China, for example, have surged since Chevron’s license to operate was canceled in May. In turn, Venezuelan exports to the U.S. and its capitalist allies have cratered.

The strategic cost

Rubio’s hatred of Latin American socialism is clear, but that shouldn’t come at a strategic cost to our country. This isn’t a diplomatic blunder. It’s a threat to U.S. energy security and a betrayal of Trump’s promise to bring down prices at the pump.

We want Venezuelan oil and gas to head to the U.S. Gulf Coast, not Beijing. We need to protect the Monroe Doctrine, which says that no outside power should have a foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

The importance of energy security cannot be overstated. For an administration elected in large part on its promise to cut gas prices, it is a big mistake to turn our backs on Venezuela’s hydrocarbon reserves, the largest on earth.

Doing so increases American dependence on Canadian oil — not a smart move as we fight a trade war with Prime Minister Mark Carney — and on suppliers in a volatile Middle East, where Iran still looms large.

This is not to mention that the policy of isolation is damaging to Chevron, a champion of the American oil industry.

Under its former special license, Chevron was pumping out nearly a quarter of a million barrels of oil per day. This went straight to thirsty refiners on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which depend on Venezuela’s unique heavy crude oil. That lifeline has been cut, and it’s American consumers who will pay the price.

Grenell understood this and so wrapped Chevron’s status into his negotiations, a deal that put American interests first. Rubio, on the other hand, prioritized an ideological pursuit of regime change over American energy security.

President Trump should intervene.

He praised Grenell’s successful negotiations in January and should make clear that Venezuela policy is not for Rubio to decide. The goal is clear: Bring our citizens home, restart Chevron’s work, and reassert U.S. influence in our own hemisphere.

Renew Grenell’s leverage

Grenell, with renewed powers, should return the United States to a policy of strategic engagement. That’s what America First really looks like. That’s the approach to foreign policy promised to us in 2024. That’s the MAGA way.

It’s time to put the neocons back in the box and go back to the bold, pragmatic diplomacy that made Trump’s first term — and will make his second — a victory for everyday Americans and a triumphant return to common sense.

Imagine A World Where The Internal Combustion Engine Didn’t Exist

In 2084, humanity had finally turned its back on burning the ancient remains of a bygone era, only to find itself shackled to the caprices of the sun and wind.

Critics flame Kamala Harris over her Thanksgiving photograph with gas stove



Vice President Kamala Harris shared a seemingly innocuous photograph of herself and second gentleman Doug Emhoff to social media Thursday along with the message, "From our family to yours, happy Thanksgiving."

Astute observers noticed that the climate-conscious Democrat was standing next to an appliance the Biden administration has contemplated banning — a contraption Harris' fellow climate alarmists figure no family should have in their kitchen on Thanksgiving or on any other day.

"Wait...that's a gas stove! The same kind Dems want to BAN you from owning," wrote Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) tweeted, "Are they? A) Hypocritical [or] B) That stupid that they didn't realize it."

Florida state Rep. Berny Jacques provided Walker with another possibility, writing, "C) Hierarchy ...gas stoves for the elites, but not for we the people."

Jacques added, "Meanwhile they want you to give up your gas stoves, while they live it up with theirs. Friendly Reminder: not only will gas stoves remain legal in Florida, we also made them tax free!"

— (@)

Earlier this year, the Biden administration raised the possibility of banning gas stoves over concerns about air pollutants. An estimated 40 million American households use gas stoves.

Richard Trumka Jr., a Biden-nominated commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, told Bloomberg News in a January interview that his agency was contemplating taking action, stressing, "Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned."

Trumka later said in an interview with the Washington Post that gas stoves were risky, stating, "If I didn't have an electric stove, I might be thinking about a switch right now."

Facing significant backlash — including from moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) — the chair of the commission announced neither he nor his agency had plans to ban gas stoves. The White House similarly downplayed the possibility of a ban; however Biden's Department of Energy released a proposal for new environmental standards for gas stoves the following month aimed ultimately at gradually discouraging their use.

While leftist ambitions appear to have been put on the back burner at the federal level, New York Democrats saw the scheme through, making their state the first to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in new buildings in May.

Seizing upon the perceived disconnect between the administration's climate alarmism and Harris' gas-fueled Thanksgiving, Libs of TikTok wrote on X, "Gas stoves for me but not for thee."

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), among the many who similarly criticized the vice president, noted, "Everyone loves gas stoves! Stop trying to ban them and just let Americans cook how they please."

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

I Rented A Tesla For A Week And Am Totally Sold On Gas-Powered Cars

After test-driving one for an entire week, we learned we will never buy a Tesla or any electric vehicle as long as we have the option of gas-powered cars or even hybrids.

California Passes Bill To Control Gas Prices

Grants the governor greater oversight
MoreISO/Getty Images

By forcing Americans into electric vehicles, leftists ensure the death of road trips

You're definitely not choosing an electric vehicle for your cross-country road trip from Boston to Los Angeles.