Winston Churchill helped lead Britain through the Second World War, wrote millions of words, and won the Nobel Prize in literature. He also took a nap every afternoon.

And he didn't simply doze off in an armchair. He got undressed and climbed into bed, equipped with custom-fitted beeswax earplugs to shut out the bustle of wartime London. His naps were sacrosanct, even as the demands of running a country at war frequently kept him working well past midnight.

There's even a technique called the 'nappuccino': Drink a cup of coffee immediately before a short nap, so the caffeine starts working around the time you wake up.

"Nature has not intended mankind to work from eight in the morning until midnight without that refreshment of blessed oblivion," he wrote in his wartime memoir "The Grand Alliance."

The British Bulldog would probably have had little patience for the latest headlines warning that daytime napping may be linked to dementia.

Dementia danger?

The warnings follow a new study from Johns Hopkins researchers involving 995 Americans ages 65 and older. Researchers examined their napping habits and tracked them for up to a decade. Those who napped most days or every day had a 48% higher relative hazard of developing dementia than those who rarely or never napped.

That's a sufficiently alarming figure to make anyone think twice about an afternoon snooze. But a closer look at the findings offers some reassurance to those of us who enjoy one.

People who fell asleep unintentionally had a 39% higher relative hazard of dementia. Those who deliberately chose to nap, however, showed no statistically significant association with dementia after the researchers adjusted for other factors.

The study also found an association for naps lasting 30 minutes or less, so the findings aren't an unqualified endorsement of the power nap. Nor can the researchers say whether napping contributes to dementia or whether the changes associated with developing dementia make people sleepier during the day.

For now, at least, the recliner can stay.

Churchill's second day

Churchill regarded his afternoon nap as indispensable to getting through the day. And he had little patience for half measures.

As he explained to Walter Graebner, a Time-Life executive who worked with him on his war memoirs, the proper way to nap was to take off your clothes, get into bed, and sleep. No dozing in a chair with your shoes on.

He also rejected the notion that an afternoon rest meant accomplishing less. He believed his routine effectively gave him a day and a half for every ordinary day.

Churchill's sleeping habits were unconventional even by the standards of men who worked late. He often conducted business from bed in the morning, took his afternoon nap, and returned to work deep into the night. The beeswax earplugs were no legend, either: The International Churchill Society reported that a pair, along with the plaster casts used to make them, were auctioned in 2012.

Of course, Churchill's habits don't prove that napping is healthy. His prodigious consumption of alcohol and cigars hardly makes him a model for preventive medicine. But nobody could accuse the man of being lazy.

Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

Sleep like a soldier

Soldiers have a reputation for being able to sleep almost anywhere, whenever the opportunity presents itself. It's a useful ability in a profession where a missed night's sleep can have rather more serious consequences than a sluggish afternoon at the office.

The U.S. Army even has a name for the practice: tactical napping.

According to guidance from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, tactical naps are brief periods of sleep intended to restore and sustain military readiness. Soldiers are encouraged to nap before anticipated sleep deprivation and during extended operations when circumstances permit.

The trick is to nap before you're exhausted, not just after. Walter Reed recommends finding somewhere dark, quiet, and comfortable and allowing yourself time to shake off the grogginess afterward. There's even a technique called the "nappuccino": Drink a cup of coffee immediately before a short nap, so the caffeine starts working around the time you wake up.

NASA has also studied the benefits of a well-timed snooze. In an experiment involving long-haul airline pilots, those given the opportunity to rest slept for about 26 minutes on average and subsequently performed better and remained more alert than pilots who stayed awake.

Lead researcher Mark Rosekind later put the improvements at 34% in performance and 54% in physiological alertness.

Twenty-six minutes of sleep and a measurable improvement in the ability to do your job. How's that for a productivity hack? No cold plunges, carefully timed sun exposure, or adaptogenic mushrooms required.

Permission to nap

Frequent, unexplained daytime sleepiness can be a sign of inadequate nighttime rest, a sleep disorder, medication effects, or an underlying medical condition. Nor can a nap make up for consistently failing to get enough sleep at night.

But there's a considerable difference between repeatedly falling asleep when you don't intend to and deliberately setting aside a little time to rest.

For most healthy adults who find naps useful, 20 to 30 minutes in the early afternoon is a reasonable place to start. Nap too late and you may interfere with nighttime sleep. Sleep too long and you risk waking up groggy.

And if you need a more dignified justification than simply being tired, tell your colleagues you're following the example of Winston Churchill and the United States Army.

50 Cent exposes Hollywood's dirty little secret about 'diversity'

Hollywood’s commitment to diversity is hollow, according to rapper and television producer Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson.

The “Power” producer says the industry’s investment in black programming fails to match its rhetoric.

'They're not screaming for diversity. Are you crazy?'

OG Hollywood

“They’re not screaming for diversity. Are you crazy?” Jackson told Andrew Schulz on his podcast “Flagrant.”

“They don’t care to see you n*****s on the TV, bro,” he laughed.

Jackson appears alongside Schulz in the new “Street Fighter” adaptation, which opened October 16. Their conversation turned to the difficulty of building a television business and the kinds of projects Hollywood is willing to finance.

Jackson argued that “white Hollywood,” which he called “the original Hollywood,” remains the industry’s most commercially successful model.

Movies starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, he said, attracted audiences across racial and national lines because they were well made and properly financed. Viewers could see themselves in the characters regardless of their own backgrounds.

Jackson pointed to Tony Montana, the Cuban refugee played by Pacino in “Scarface,” as a character whose ambition resonated with audiences far beyond his own nationality.

But Jackson also sees a business opportunity in the industry’s funding priorities: He faces fewer well-financed competitors making programming for his audience.

“If you make diversity, I’m up against not so many fabulously financed projects,” he explained.

American stream

Jackson executive produces the “Power” franchise, which grew out of the Starz crime drama that aired from 2014 to 2020.

He said the rise of streaming services has helped create an opening for his work, with competing platforms needing shows that bring in subscribers.

“So when I come in, I’m able to to create s**t that is beyond ‘up to standard’ because of the landscape of the business. I’m coming at a time that you got streamers and apps and all of these different things.”

Johnny Nunez/WireImage

Where is the love?

Jackson also questioned why the “Power” franchise’s popularity with black and Latino audiences had failed to translate into Emmy recognition.

“They don’t care about diversity. Trust me,” he said. “I’ve been No. 1 in African-American and Latino households for, and this s**t is crazy, like for 13 years.”

While none of the dramas he produced have won Emmys, Jackson took home a trophy for his 2022 performance in the Super Bowl halftime show.

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

TAKE OFF, EH? Canada, US trade election meddling charges as Alberta rejects separation

Albertans overwhelmingly rejected a move toward independence Monday, but supporters of separation insist the issue is far from settled.

In a provincial referendum, roughly 76% of voters chose Option 1 — for Alberta to “remain a province of Canada” — while about 24% backed Option 2, which would have begun the legal process required to hold a binding referendum on separation.

'Keep your nose out of American politics,' said Hoekstra.

The results remain unofficial until October 29.

The vote was quickly dubbed a “referendum on a referendum.” Even an Option 2 victory would not have meant Alberta was leaving Canada. It would have started the process toward another, binding vote on whether the province should separate.

Premier Danielle Smith campaigned for Option 1 alongside Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

American interference?

The federalist cause also received some enthusiastic help from the Canadian press. Days before the vote, the Globe and Mail published a lengthy investigation connecting Alberta separatists to American Republican political operatives and alleging that independence leaders had offered Washington access to the province's natural resources, including fresh water and oil royalties, in exchange for assistance.

But the investigation's most explosive allegations were disputed by some of its own sources.

Dennis Modry, a co-founder of the Alberta Prosperity Project, acknowledged discussing possible resource arrangements with the United States. But fellow APP co-founder Jeff Rath, an Alberta lawyer who arranged the meetings with State Department officials, insisted none of those proposals had been discussed in Washington. The Globe also acknowledged that no agreements had been reached and quoted a White House official saying that no American support or commitments had been offered.

Writing in a sharply critical response, Alberta commentator Colin MacLeod accused the newspaper of combining separate incidents and individuals into a misleading narrative of coordinated American interference.

The investigation also documented American Republican consultants promoting political software to Alberta separatists. But APP leader Mitch Sylvestre told the Globe he refused to give the consultants access to his organization's membership list, citing serious concerns about privacy.

In an exclusive interview with Blaze Lifestyle before the vote, Rath accused the Globe — which he characterized as one of the government's “propaganda arms” — of deliberately misleading readers.

“But what surprised me was, like, how blatantly they lied and how foolish the lies were,” he said, singling out the allegation about trading Alberta's water for American assistance.

“I mean, completely ludicrous. We have the St. Mary's River watershed, and we have the Milk River watersheds. They're the only rivers that flow from Alberta into the U.S. They're governed under an international agreement by an international commission. You know, there's not enough water in either one of those rivers to supply Las Vegas, let alone all of California.”

'A massive machine'

On Tuesday, Rath told Blaze Lifestyle that the defeat would not end the independence movement.

He predicted support would grow as Carney's Liberal government made life more difficult for Albertans and said he was proud of the result his side achieved against a powerful political establishment.

“We fought a battle against a massive machine,” Rath said.

Smith, meanwhile, was ready to put the question behind her.

“So tonight I want to invite every Albertan who may still feel hopeless or frustrated with the past direction of our country, to believe and hope in Canada again,” she said.

“Because although our country isn’t perfect and there is still much work to be done, I believe that Canada is on the rise again.”

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Who's interfering with whom?

But the referendum produced an awkward bit of cross-border symmetry.

In the closing days of the campaign, Carney warned foreign governments — specifically including the United States — to stay out of Alberta's vote.

“Our expectation is, to be absolutely clear, on foreign governments, United States included, is we don't get ourselves involved in their elections, they don't get themselves in our elections,” Carney said.

At almost exactly the same time, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra was accusing Canadian politicians of edging toward interference in America's November 3 midterm elections.

“We are closely watching Canadian activities because it appears that some of this, from our perspective, in the way that we view our elections, could be inferred to be election interference,” Hoekstra said in an interview with "The Really Big Show."

Among his examples were comments from Industry Minister Mélanie Joly about designing retaliatory tariffs to hit politically sensitive U.S. states.

Hoekstra's advice to Canadian politicians was considerably less diplomatic.

“Keep your nose out of American politics,” he said.

In July, Carney appointed Maia Johnson, an American citizen and former Hillary Clinton campaign aide, as chief operating officer of the Prime Minister's Office.

One wonders what the reaction would have been if Carney had appointed a former Trump campaign operative instead. Would the Globe and Mail have been so relaxed about American political influence in Ottawa?

At 96, Thomas Sowell still has homework for you

Thomas Sowell has a suggestion for young people heading off to college: Get an education while you’re there.

He’s even put together a reading list.

Sowell's introductory statement makes clear that he expects readers to question what they find, including his own arguments.

The economist and author, now 96, launched Facts Against Rhetoric last year to help people find arguments they might otherwise go through their entire schooling without encountering. It’s an extensive collection of books, essays, interviews, lectures, and online courses, organized by subject and available to anyone with the curiosity to start clicking.

Introducing the project in an April 2025 interview with Peter Robinson, Sowell described his purpose as “enabling students to get an education despite being in college.”

Parents paying the tuition may find something useful here too.

The site is a meticulously curated collection of educational resources on subjects ranging from “Intellectuals and Ideologies” and “Italians Around the World” to economics, education, and race. Alongside direct links to interviews, lectures, articles, and courses, Sowell provides extensive bibliographies pointing readers to books, specific chapters, and articles, often noting where and in what formats they’re available. You can click through to watch Sowell challenge claims about the “wage gap” for blacks and women on William F. Buckley Jr.’s “Firing Line” in 1981 or listen to Edward R. Murrow's 1943 account of a brush with death on an RAF bombing run over Berlin.

Although 96, Sowell is hardly taking a victory lap here. He is on a mission, the urgency of which he explains in his introductory statement. A college graduate has decades of life ahead of him, during which he will encounter questions his professors never anticipated. Even if everything they taught him were correct, memorizing their answers would leave him poorly prepared to think through those new problems.

He will need some practice disagreeing with people. Preferably before his livelihood depends on it.

A former Marxist’s reading list

In his long life, Sowell has had to revise a few convictions of his own.

Born in North Carolina in 1930 and raised partly in Harlem, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School, worked a succession of jobs, and served in the Marine Corps. Eventually he earned degrees from Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago. He went on to teach at Cornell, Amherst, and UCLA, among other institutions.

Along the way, he was a Marxist. Studying under legendary free-market economist Milton Friedman did not immediately cure him. In Sowell’s telling, a summer working at the Department of Labor in 1960 proved more effective. Investigating unemployment in Puerto Rico’s sugar industry, he wanted to test whether minimum-wage requirements were contributing to the problem. His colleagues’ lack of enthusiasm for an inquiry that might undermine their own department’s policy helped change his understanding of government.

Decades later, Facts Against Rhetoric gives readers plenty of opportunities to examine the conclusions he reached. His own books appear throughout, alongside work by economists, historians, journalists, and other scholars.

The selections plainly reflect his sympathies. Under socialism, for example, you’ll find Friedman's 1993 talk "The Rise of Socialism Is Absurd" as well as a reading list, including Joshua Muravchik’s “Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism" and Paul Hollander's "From Benito Mussolini to Hugo Chavez: Intellectuals and a Century of Political Hero Worship."Anyone hoping for encouragement to join the revolution will have to look elsewhere.

But there is considerably more here than a collection of arguments to deploy against your liberal brother-in-law.

Start anywhere

For a first visit, try the capitalism section, which links to Friedman’s 1979 appearance on “The Phil Donahue Show” and his lecture “Is Capitalism Humane?” Both offer a manageable introduction before you commit to the books listed below them, including Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom.”

Readers who prefer a more structured approach can follow the economics page to Hillsdale College’s online “Economics 101: Principles of Free Market Economics.” The same page points to Sowell’s “Basic Economics” and Walter E. Williams’ “Race and Economics,” along with shorter selections on subjects including affordability and unions.

Parents may want to begin with education. Here Sowell assembles material on schools, colleges, admissions, and academic performance. There’s an interview about his “Charter Schools and Their Enemies,” a discussion with Robert Pondiscio about Success Academy, and a link to Stanford’s 2023 National Charter School Study for readers who want to examine the research.

The college section also includes psychologist Steven Pinker’s interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie, “What Went Wrong at Harvard.” Pinker discusses academic freedom, the policing of acceptable opinion, and why universities get into trouble when they pronounce on controversies their students and faculty should be free to debate.

For a longer excursion, the biographies page points to videos and articles on figures including Calvin Coolidge, Albert Einstein, and Frederick Douglass. Among a list of recommended books on John D. Rockefeller sits Ron Chernow’s “Titan"; readers considering Stephen Kotkin’s multivolume biography of Stalin — recommended here — can sample his work in the lecture “Stalin at War.”

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn

The library card

One of the site’s biographical recommendations is an extended interview with Sowell himself, “Thomas Sowell: A Free Man.”

In it, he recalls arriving in Harlem as a child and being taken to a public library by another boy. Sowell had never seen so many books. He also couldn’t afford to buy one, which made the purpose of the visit somewhat mysterious.

His young guide persuaded him to get a library card. Sowell borrowed two books and began acquiring the reading habit that would occupy much of the rest of his life.

Now he has some suggestions for the rest of us. His introductory statement makes clear that he expects readers to question what they find, including his own arguments: “Whether you end up agreeing with me or with them is beside the point.”

Pick a subject, follow a link, track down a book. You can disagree with Professor Sowell — or not — after you’ve done the reading.

SENIOR MOMENT: Veteran 'SNL' player breaks ranks to scold Shane Gillis for jokes

"Saturday Night Live" veteran Kenan Thompson appears to be the only current cast member publicly scolding Shane Gillis over his controversial opening monologue.

And Thompson is prepared to treat the 38-year-old comedian like a naughty child.

'I think you need to educate yourself on how things might impact people.'

Performance review

Speaking at Axios' Media Trends Live event in New York City on Tuesday, Thompson said he would have to sit Gillis down for a little talk if he returned to host "SNL."

"I'm sure we would have a conversation of, like, 'How do you think that went?' ... Like a little kid," Thompson told host Sara Fischer.

"I would just sit him down and be like, 'So what do you think we could change there, pal?' And just figure it out."

Thompson's remarks stand out among reactions from Gillis' "SNL" colleagues. The current cast has largely avoided publicly criticizing the comedian, while prominent alumni Dana Carvey and David Spade have come to his defense.

Even Michael Che, who co-hosts the show's "Weekend Update" segment, declined to condemn Gillis when pressed during an appearance on "Today."

"That's comedy," Che said, explaining that he couldn't criticize Gillis for a joke that didn't land.

Carvey was less reserved.

"I just didn't understand the kerfuffle — only because to me, I just saw it as what we call, I'll just say it, a joke!" Carvey said on his "Fly on the Wall" podcast with Spade.

Not every former cast member has been supportive. Ego Nwodim and Cecily Strong have both mocked Gillis' joke about women dressing like "whores" at the gym.

But Thompson, now in his 23rd season on "SNL," has offered perhaps the most patronizing response yet.

'Harmful' ha-has

Thompson said he didn't necessarily consider Gillis a mean person, but suggested the comedian needed to learn that his jokes could hurt people.

"I don't think jokes are necessarily harmless just because they're jokes and you didn't intend it to be a certain kind of way," Thompson said. "I think you need to educate yourself on how things might impact people."

He also warned that comedians must balance their "creative liberties" with "watching your step as far as harmful words are concerned."

The remarks came more than a week after Gillis' third hosting appearance on "SNL," during which he joked that women at his gym were dressing like "whores."

Rosalind O'Connor/NBC via Getty Images

Stealing the spotlight

Thompson also seemed annoyed that the controversy had drawn attention away from the rest of the episode.

"Everybody's focusing in on this one specific word," he complained, adding that other parts of the monologue and the show were getting "overshadowed."

The actor pointed to new cast member Grace Reiter's performance and musical guest Rosalía, saying both deserved more attention than the debate over Gillis' remarks.

"It's sad, because nobody is even talking about it," Thompson said.

He went on to complain that the discussion had become a "back-and-forth on what's offensive and what's not."

When asked whether Gillis would be invited back, Thompson acknowledged that the decision wasn't his to make.

But he insisted that a return would require a "real chat" about avoiding behavior that creates a "wave pool" for the rest of the cast.

For now, Gillis has not publicly responded to Thompson's proposed fatherly intervention.

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

Dana Carvey has just one word for Shane Gillis' controversial 'SNL' routine

“Saturday Night Live” veteran Dana Carvey has a name for Shane Gillis’ crude, widely condemned remarks about women at the gym: a joke.

The comedian weighed in on the backlash to Gillis’ October 10 “Saturday Night Live” monologue, in which he declared, “I haven’t been to the gym in so long, I didn’t know women just dress like whores now.”

'I just didn't understand the kerfuffle.'

Schitt fit

Gillis went on to describe the revealing shorts women wear to work out, repeatedly portraying himself as a creep for noticing. The routine drew condemnation from fellow entertainers, including “Schitt’s Creek” star Dan Levy, who called the remarks misogynistic.

Carvey, who spent seven seasons on “SNL” from 1986 to 1993, couldn't understand the fuss.

“I just didn’t understand the kerfuffle only because, to me, I just saw it as what we call — I’ll just say it — a joke,” he said on his “Fly on the Wall” podcast with fellow “SNL” alumnus David Spade.

“Like ... when you say jokes, you’re not literally saying women are whores. You are literally joking. Isn’t that kind of the idea?”

Then, apparently reconsidering the wisdom of his defense, Carvey added: “No? Did I just get canceled?”

Tough crowd

Carvey acknowledged that a joke that might have destroyed at the comedy clubs Gillis regularly plays could land differently in NBC's Studio 8H.

He and Spade noted that the “SNL” audience tends to consist largely of dressed-up young women — not necessarily the crowd most receptive to Gillis' observations about women's gym attire.

Spade, who appeared on “SNL” from 1990 to 1996, was similarly unfazed.

“Listen, it got some laughs, but of course, I think he knows that one’s going to be a button-pusher, but he doesn’t care,” he said.

Spade also found something contradictory about the response to Gillis, particularly in a culture that demands respect for sex workers while condemning women such as actress Sydney Sweeney.

“I will say it’s almost comical that there’s people that say, ‘Oh, don’t make fun of OnlyFans. Don’t make fun of strippers. These are sex workers. They need to be respected.’ And then everyone hates Sydney Sweeney. And it’s like, what? Which one is it?”

Ultimately, Spade suggested that the difference between an acceptable “SNL” joke and an unacceptable one often comes down to the audience's reaction.

“I think at 'SNL,' if something kills, it gets a pass,” he said. “If something totally bombs, then they get in a lot of trouble.”

Al Levine/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal/Getty Images

Natural-born killer

Carvey and Spade aren't the only comedians to defend Gillis.

British comic Jimmy Carr dismissed the controversy, saying he makes worse jokes every day.

Two other former “SNL” cast members also had kind words for Gillis. Victoria Jackson, who appeared on the show from 1986 to 1992, was considerably less diplomatic than Carvey.

“He’s right about gym girls dressing like ‘whores,’” Jackson told Entertainment Weekly. “When did ‘camel toe’ become acceptable gym fashion and grocery shopping attire?”

Former cast member Jeff Richards, meanwhile, called Gillis a “really funny guy” and an “obvious natural.”

Gillis' monologue may have offended a sizeable contingent of entertainers. But among some of the comedians who once worked on the same “SNL” stage, the response has been considerably less scandalized.

Jeff Richards, a cast member from 2001 to 2004, called Gillis a "really funny guy" and an "obvious natural."

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

GM killed the oil dipstick. That's not progress.

When you pop the hood of a new pickup truck, there's something you won't find any more: the oil dipstick.

General Motors has confirmed that its new sixth-generation 5.7-liter and 6.6-liter V8 engines, coming to the 2027 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500, will no longer have a conventional dipstick. Instead, drivers will check the oil level on a digital display inside the truck.

I still check my tires with a pressure gauge, even though my vehicles have tire-pressure monitoring systems.

I've been working on cars for decades, and I think this is a mistake.

Checking your oil is one of the simplest and most important things you can do to protect your engine. You pull out the dipstick, wipe it clean, reinsert it, and pull it out again. In seconds, you know whether your engine has enough oil. You can also see what the oil looks like.

You don't need to start the engine, navigate a touchscreen, or trust a sensor.

What's wrong with the old-fashioned way?

GM claims its new electronic system is designed to simplify ownership. It monitors oil levels, warns drivers when they're too low or too high, and even tells them how much oil to add.

And according to a GM engineer interviewed by Pickup Truck + SUV Talk, packaging was part of the decision: Additional fuel-injection hardware made it difficult to accommodate a traditional dipstick tube.

But here's my problem. When do you most want to check your oil? Before you start the engine.

The 2027 Silverado owner's manual instructs drivers to park on level ground, leave the engine idling at normal operating temperature, and select the oil-level display on the infotainment screen.

Think about that. You have to run the engine before you can perform a manual oil-level check.

My co-host on "The Drive," automotive analyst Karl Brauer, has dealt with this problem firsthand. His 2009 and 2012 Porsche 911s had electronic oil-level systems that required him to warm up the engine, park on level ground, and work through a series of menus.

Karl raised a question during a recent episode that gets right to the heart of the problem: What if your engine develops an oil leak overnight?

Suppose a gasket fails and oil drains out while your truck is parked. With a dipstick, you can check the level immediately, before starting the engine.

GM says its electronic system automatically warns drivers about low oil. But the owner's manual requires a warm, running engine for an accurate manual oil-level reading. Whether the system can warn you about oil lost overnight before you start the engine remains unclear.

I would prefer to have a dipstick so I can check for myself.

NurPhote/Getty Images

Sensors aren't infallible

I have owned vehicles with electronic oil-level systems, including an Audi RS5, and I didn't like giving up that simple mechanical check.

Karl also recalled owning older BMWs that repeatedly displayed low-oil warnings even though the oil level was fine. The sensor was the problem.

A malfunctioning sensor can give you a false alarm. The more troubling possibility is a faulty reading that fails to alert you to a genuine problem.

That doesn't mean GM's new system is unreliable. The technology hasn't been in customers' hands long enough to establish that. But an electronic sensor introduces another component that can fail, and there is no longer a physical dipstick to double-check it.

Know what's under your hood

I'm a firm believer that every driver should understand the basics of vehicle maintenance.

Before my children started driving, I made sure they knew how to check their oil, tire pressure, and other essential fluids. I wanted them to understand what was happening mechanically rather than simply waiting for a warning light.

I still check my tires with a pressure gauge, even though my vehicles have tire-pressure monitoring systems. I compare the reading with the recommended pressure on the driver's doorjamb.

Technology can be an excellent backup. But I don't want it to be my only source of information.

To be clear, GM isn't eliminating the dipstick from every 2027 Silverado and Sierra. The 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder and 3.0-liter Duramax diesel will retain theirs. It's the new V8s that lose the familiar yellow-handled tool.

Maybe the electronic system will prove to be convenient and reliable. I certainly hope so.

But I have to wonder what we have really gained by eliminating a device that costs very little, rarely fails, and lets an owner check a critical engine fluid without even turning the key.

Sometimes the simplest technology is still the best.

Oprah built an empire preaching the divinity within. It was Christ she turned to in her darkest hour.

Oprah Winfrey has spent roughly four decades helping Americans discover who they really are. Apparently, the job isn't finished.

Next April, the 72-year-old former talk-show queen will descend on the Las Vegas Sphere for "AHA," a four-performance extravaganza featuring music, poetry, storytelling, and what its promoters call the ultimate “aha” moment.

What happens when you look inside and don't find any light? What happens when your 'authentic self' turns out to be selfish, foolish, or cruel?

Winfrey calls the production the culmination of her life's work.

Culmination is an interesting word.

After 25 seasons of "The Oprah Winfrey Show," a magazine, a book club, her own television network, countless spiritual teachers, wellness programs, podcasts, and several decades of encouraging Americans to discover their authentic selves, one wonders what remains to be discovered.

Have Winfrey's followers finally accumulated enough wisdom? Will the great journey toward self-actualization at last be complete? Or is there another missing piece of the human soul that requires an enormous LED screen to locate?

Sphere of influence

This is familiar territory for Winfrey. As early as 2001, she was charging $185 for all-day Live Your Best Life workshops. Two years later, she brought the program to Seattle, where 2,700 admirers assembled for seven hours of inspirational instruction.

A reporter covering a 2003 session in Seattle described a spiritual revival, complete with a congregation and a preacher wearing diamonds and high heels.

In 2014 came an eight-city arena tour called "The Life You Want Weekend," with spiritual advisers, exercises in self-discovery, and corporate sponsors. Another arena wellness tour followed in 2020.

So there is nothing particularly surprising about Winfrey selling enlightenment in Las Vegas. The Sphere is a perfectly plausible venue for her particular brand of uplift.

Nor is there anything inherently hypocritical about charging people to help them improve themselves. The more interesting question is what Winfrey has been teaching all these years and whether her extraordinary life actually supports it.

The preacher girl

Oprah Winfrey is a remarkable American success story.

Born in rural Mississippi in 1954, she endured poverty, instability, and sexual abuse before becoming one of the most successful broadcasters in television history. Her rise required tremendous determination, but determination alone doesn't explain it.

Winfrey possessed an extraordinary gift for communication. She could listen to a stranger with such apparent concentration that millions of people watching at home felt included in the conversation. She understood instinctively where the emotional center of a story lay. She could coax a confession, recognize a moment of vulnerability, or make a famous person seem briefly ordinary.

The origins of that talent are worth examining.

Oprah grew up in the Baptist church. Her grandmother taught her to read, using the Bible among other texts. By the age of 3, Oprah was standing before congregations reciting verses about the Resurrection.

The women in the front pews told her grandmother that the little girl was gifted. Winfrey heard this often enough that she began to believe it.

Her Christianity was no casual inheritance. In a 2015 interview with AARP, Winfrey recalled being baptized around 8 years old, after agonizing for days over whether she was prepared to renounce sin.

"And, my God, did I take it seriously!" she recalled.

Indeed, she described herself as "a zealot who irritated every one of my third-grade friends." Her classmates had a nickname for her: "the preacher girl."

Soon she was performing poetry and sermons in churches around Nashville. In an interview with the Academy of Achievement, Winfrey traced her broadcasting career directly to those childhood performances.

But Christianity gave Winfrey more than her first audience.

A child of God

By her own account, Christianity gave Winfrey the confidence to imagine a future radically different from the one her circumstances seemed to promise.

At 14, after years of sexual abuse, Winfrey became pregnant. She has spoken about the shame and despair she experienced, including thoughts of ending her life. In that same AARP interview, she recalled turning to God in her desperation. If she was going to die, she reasoned, God would have to take her life. Otherwise, she would live and somehow find a way through.

She survived. Her baby, born prematurely, did not.

What stands out in her account is that she didn't describe suddenly discovering some unsuspected reservoir of inner strength. She described appealing to God.

Growing up without a father had made the preacher's assurance that God was her Father especially powerful. She took it literally. Jesus, she reasoned, was her brother.

In a 2015 podcast appearance, Winfrey explained that believing she was a child of God, and that she could do all things through Christ, gave her confidence even when she felt alone and unloved. She credited that relationship with God for helping make her the person she became.

From Christ to 'Christ consciousness'

Winfrey has never disavowed the Christian faith of her childhood. When explaining how she survived those early years and became who she is, she continues to credit the old-fashioned Christianity she grew up with.

But the eclectic, New Age-inflected spirituality of higher consciousness, personal truth, and divinity within the self that she has since built into a billion-dollar empire represents a very different theology from the one expressed in Philippians 4:13.

Perhaps its clearest expression came in 2008, when Winfrey hosted a series of online seminars with spiritual writer Eckhart Tolle, whose book "A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" she had selected for her book club.

During the seminars, Winfrey recalled hearing a preacher describe God as jealous when she was in her late 20s. The idea troubled her. How could an all-loving, omnipresent God also be jealous? She said the experience began a search for something beyond doctrine. She had finally come to understand Jesus as a teacher of "Christ consciousness," a way of awakening to a divine presence within.

It's easy to see the appeal of this more accommodating Jesus. But one wonders how well such a theology would have served that desperate, lost 14-year-old.

Emma McIntyre | Getty Images

The gift of self

Transformation in Christ famously requires a kind of death. The ultimate victory comes at the price of surrender.

The gospel according to Oprah offers an altogether different revelation: You already possess everything you need to become your best self.

Winfrey was unusually well equipped to preach it. She knew the power of personal testimony and understood how a painful experience could become a story of transformation. Her television program had long featured confessions, reconciliations, and dramatic changes of heart. Increasingly, these became lessons in how to live.

And there is much to admire in her message. Self-examination, gratitude, and the effort to overcome destructive habits are worthwhile pursuits. Nor is there anything dishonest about charging for guidance.

But the promise of self-discovery has a peculiar problem: How do you know when you've discovered enough?

Somewhere within you is a truer, better, more fulfilled version of yourself. A book helps you glimpse it. A guru reveals another obstacle. A workshop uncovers another wound. You experience an awakening, only to discover that another breakthrough awaits.

There is always another aha moment.

The way and the truth

Christianity's central revelation, by contrast, concerns something that has already happened: Christ came, died, and rose. Believers may spend their lives struggling to understand and live according to it, but they aren't waiting for Christianity's next installment.

And Christianity makes demands that Winfrey's therapeutic spirituality tends to soften. It insists that truth exists independently of our preferences, and that some of our desires may be wrong.

What happens when you look inside and don't find any light? What happens when your "authentic self" turns out to be selfish, foolish, or cruel?

These questions are particularly awkward in Winfrey's case.

She knows where she found the strength to survive. What is less clear is whether the spirituality she now offers millions could have provided the same strength.

Perhaps Winfrey is a prophet who misunderstands herself.

She preaches the dignity of the individual, the possibility of redemption, the power of hope, and the conviction that suffering need not determine one's future. Her own life is persuasive evidence for these truths. Yet the faith she credits with making that life possible located its source outside herself.

For decades, Winfrey has told Americans that the answers are already inside them. Next April, they can finally discover those answers on one of the world's largest LED screens.

Tickets start at $145.

Comedian Chris D'Elia gives hilarious take on Israel/Palestine — and people can't handle it

Chris D'Elia hates making his material political, and activists hate that.

That's why when the comedian gave his latest take on the war between Israel and Palestine, he knew it was going to ruffle some feathers.

'Guys, how can we report him?'

Choose or lose

For years, the New Jersey native has told fans he doesn't want to use his act to take sides, a policy he reiterated during a recent appearance at the Improv.

"People will be like, 'You have a following, are you going to say something about Gaza?'" the comedian began.

D'Elia's reply was short and to the point: "Where's that?"

When he gets asked, "Well, are you for Palestine or Israel?" D'Elia has a response for that too:

"I don't watch soccer, I don't know! I hope they have a good game."

While the joke killed with the live audience, D'Elia knew what he was getting into when he posted it online:

"I'm sure the comment section below will make us all feel really good and happy," he wrote.

The social media activists did not disappoint.

Peanut gallery

"It's ok to be spineless and stand for nothing," a Lebanese man said.

"You can be funny and stand for justice at the same time, you do not have to compromise one for the other," another man, with "FreePalestine" in his profile replied.

"Damn chris been bought out by [Israel]," said another.

"Guys, how can we report him?" asked an Indian man.

Many other comments took D'Elia's non-stance as a stance in itself, saying they now understood him to be a supporter of Israel.

Gun nuts

The joke police always come out in full force whenever the comic even broaches the subject of politics, which he does more often than he may be willing to admit.

In January, D'Elia went out on a limb and joked that he thinks all superheroes are secretly Republicans.

"Who's Republican, dude? Wolverine! Cyclops! Professor X, hello?! You think he's out there — in his mind, he's like, 'But secretly, f**k these woke, white, liberal women.' Killing them left and right, dude, with his brain."

Not that D'Elia spares the GOP. Last year, D'Elia caricatured conservatives as trigger-happy gun nuts while recounting being accosted by a liberal petitioner who wanted him to give a signature to support abortion rights.

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

Peter Thiel has everything. Maybe he just wants to be 19 again.

I went to see Peter Thiel deliver one of his "Antichrist" lectures in Nashville, Tennessee, recently.

It was held in the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Temple of Freemasons, a beautiful old building just up the street from Nashville’s famous Broadway strip.

To my right were two enthusiastic Indian men in their mid-20s. I didn’t talk to them, but they seemed like girls at a Taylor Swift concert.

Doors opened at five, the lecture started at six. I wanted to be there early for maximum people-watching. I was curious who exactly was going to these lectures.

Peter Thiel was a member of the original “PayPal mafia," so he’s of obvious interest to techies. Since PayPal, he’s continued to build and invest in other tech projects, most recently Palantir, which has been controversial. (Some people worry about its surveillance possibilities.)

Thiel is also a notable conservative and has generously contributed to like-minded political and cultural causes. Rumors often swirl among right-leaning creatives and artists, who among them might be getting precious “Thiel bucks.”

Apocalypse-maxxing

But now, with his fortune made and his iconic status locked in, Thiel had branched out into a new area: religious and philosophical discourse.

In his "Antichrist" lectures, Thiel was discussing the philosophical ramifications of a world dictator — as described in the New Testament — who would inevitably rise up in a climate of constant fearmongering and societal decline.

So would the attendees of Thiel’s lectures be students of philosophy and biblical history? Well, probably not.

I suspected most Thiel fans were still mostly fascinated by his vast wealth and technological genius, his relationship with Elon Musk, his thoughts on late-Trumpism. Things like that.

But if he wanted to talk about Aristotle and biblical prophecy, well OK, they were willing to hear about that.

Young and conservative in America

I pulled up in my Uber in front of the Grand Lodge. Attendees were mingling on the steps outside, along with an impressive amount of security personnel.

As with most conservative events, there were a lot of young men dressed in coats and ties. They too were gathered on the front stairs, as cars and ride-shares pulled up, delivering more guests for the event. It looked a little like a movie premiere at times.

I passed through security and entered the building. Inside, there was more security and an airport-style screening machine. More young men in coats and ties were gathered there as well.

I noticed how happy everyone looked. For these guys, living under the constant weight of wokeism (even in Tennessee), tonight was a moment of unity and camaraderie.

You could see it in their faces. What a relief it was to come together like this. Especially around a figure like Peter Thiel, a shining example of conservative competence, excellence, and success.

VIP seating

I eventually made it to my seat in the VIP section. I introduced myself to the man on my left. He was a pastor and had recently run for governor in his state but lost in the Republican primary.

To my right were two enthusiastic Indian men in their mid-20s. I didn’t talk to them, but they seemed like girls at a Taylor Swift concert, anxious and impatient to see their hero in the flesh.

I have to admit, I was excited too. It was fun being in that room. I kept scanning the audience. Smart, good-looking people everywhere. Everyone buzzing with anticipation ...

White vs. black

Without fanfare, Thiel came to the podium and began his talk. People settled in. He mostly read his lecture, which wasn’t ideal, but he was engaging. And there were some funny bits.

I found his attire interesting. He was dressed all in white: white T-shirt, white skinny jeans, futuristic white sneakers. What does that mean? I wondered.

For that matter, why is the Antichrist such an important concept for Thiel? How does it relate to him?

Leftist critics say these lectures are a way for Thiel to strike back at those who would try to restrict Palantir. Others wonder if Thiel will become an “Antichrist” himself, if Palantir becomes an invasive surveillance apparatus.

Either way, if he’s dressing all in white, Thiel must think of himself as the “good guy.”

Remembrance of things past

Another thought I had: Peter Thiel was a philosophy major at Stanford as an undergrad, after which he went to Stanford Law School, where he began his pursuit of money, power, and influence.

What if now that he has achieved so much, he feels isolated and alone and nostalgic for his pre-celebrity youth?

What if the best memories of his life were those years at Stanford, where, while still a teenager, he spent late nights with his fellow philosophy students talking about “stoicism” and “ethics” and “the ultimate purpose of life”?

What if those undergrad days were the last moments of innocence and genuine intellectual curiosity he had before feeding himself into the capitalist technology machine?

Maybe this lecture series was his attempt to return to those carefree days, when he didn’t have to travel with a security detail, before he was forced into the technocratic hero/villain roles he will never escape.

Maybe Peter Thiel wants to be 19 again. A student. A lover of knowledge. Without all the baggage his fame and fortune have forced on him.

Dementia danger?

Churchill's second day

Sleep like a soldier

Permission to nap

OG Hollywood

American stream

Where is the love?

American interference?

'A massive machine'

Who's interfering with whom?

A former Marxist’s reading list

Start anywhere

The library card

Performance review

'Harmful' ha-has

Stealing the spotlight

Schitt fit

Tough crowd

Natural-born killer

What's wrong with the old-fashioned way?

Sensors aren't infallible

Know what's under your hood

Sphere of influence

The preacher girl

A child of God

From Christ to 'Christ consciousness'

The gift of self

The way and the truth

Choose or lose

Peanut gallery

Gun nuts

Apocalypse-maxxing

Young and conservative in America

VIP seating

White vs. black

Remembrance of things past

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.