'Fight fascism': Mike Myers goes full social justice warrior at New York rock concert



If a rock concert in 2026 isn't overtly political, is it really a rock concert?

Apparently not if the Strokes are involved.

'As we as we fight fascism and genocide, raise wages, and guarantee health care to everyone.'

Fight the Powers

The New York band performed before roughly 40,000 fans at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens on Friday, with a lineup that included Beach House, TV on the Radio, and Fcukers — plus a couple of considerably more political special guests.

One famous audience member made sure everyone knew he was there.

"Austin Powers" star Mike Myers posted several photos from the concert to Instagram while wearing a black T-shirt reading "FIGHT FASCISM," emblazoned with the familiar red raised fist of left-wing protest movements.

Myers described the Strokes with fire emojis before writing, "#voteinnovember #fightfascism."

The leftist love wasn't limited to the crowd.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) took the stage before the Strokes' set and heaped praise on the band.

"The greatest city in the world is now welcoming the greatest rock band of our generation, who have always been committed to a better future for all of us," Ocasio-Cortez declared, "as we fight fascism and genocide, raise wages, and guarantee health care to everyone," she continued, as the crowd cheered.

The audience got even louder when AOC introduced the next guest: Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

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

Bern there, done that

AOC escorted Sanders to the microphone, the two raising their arms together as the crowd roared.

Sanders opened by joking that he had come to sing a few songs.

"You wouldn't want to hear that," he added.

He then thanked the Strokes for "standing up for economic justice" and "fighting racism," while praising the band's "understanding that health care is a human right."

Sanders closed by urging the audience to vote and to "stand up to authoritarianism" in November.

The Strokes have been "feeling the Bern" for a few years now. The band performed at a Sanders campaign rally in New Hampshire during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, with frontman Julian Casablancas calling Sanders America's "only truly non-corporate candidate" and declaring, "This is why we support him."

Friday's event — which the band's website noted was taking place in "one of the most culturally diverse neighborhoods in the world" — also featured a live edition of Casablancas' podcast, "S.O.S. Earth Is a Mess," devoted to climate change.

RELATED: Did these 6 movies about Satan accidentally summon him to their sets?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Citizen Mike

As for Myers, this was hardly his first recent political outing.

The Canadian-born actor endorsed Liberal Party leader Mark Carney during Canada's 2025 federal election and helped popularize "Elbows Up," a hockey-derived rallying cry that Canadians adopted while pushing back against President Donald Trump's tariff threats and repeated talk of making Canada the 51st state.

Myers is also an American citizen. In a previous interview, he spoke about being grateful for that citizenship and described living in the United States as a privilege.

Apparently dual citizenship also means never having to choose just one country's politics.

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

First New York wants you to drive less. Then it wants to tax every mile.



On a recent episode of “The Drive,” my co-host Karl Brauer and I got into a discussion about a pair of bills being considered in my home state of New York.

One sets a goal of reducing driving across the entire state by 20%. The other would tax certain fuel-efficient vehicles by the mile and require an electronic device in the car to keep track.

To calculate the tax, qualifying vehicles would be required to have an onboard electronic unit installed when the vehicle is registered, re-registered, or renewed.

I had a fairly basic question: This might work for New York City, but how exactly are the rest of us supposed to drive 20% less?

Even a Californian like Karl saw the problem immediately.

“There's this whole area, the politicians might have heard of it,” he joked. “It's called Upstate New York.”

Exactly.

If you live in Brooklyn, you may have a subway station a few blocks away. Where I live near Buffalo, and across huge stretches of Upstate New York, your car isn't some luxury you can casually replace with a subway, bicycle, or comfortable pair of walking shoes.

You drive to work. You drive your kids to school. You drive to buy groceries or see family.

For millions of New Yorkers, driving isn't optional.

Miles to go

So what exactly is Albany proposing?

The Get Around NY Act, sponsored in the Senate by Brooklyn Democrat state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, would establish a goal of reducing the total number of vehicle miles traveled in New York state by 20% by 2050.

Now let's be precise about what the bill does, because it's important. Nobody is proposing that a police officer check your odometer on Dec. 31 and issue you a ticket because you drove 12,000 miles instead of 9,600. The 20% target applies statewide, not to individual drivers. The bill would instead use transportation policy to push the state's total mileage downward.

Under the legislation, state and local highway projects that expand road capacity would have to undergo a "vehicle miles traveled impact assessment." If a project doesn't align with the state's 20% reduction goal, officials would have to change the project or offset its effects through measures designed to reduce driving.

Those measures could include expanded public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, "micro-mobility" infrastructure, parking-demand management, transit-oriented development, and other land-use changes.

What are the alternatives?

Gounardes has been very clear about the idea behind it. "If we measure VMT, we can work to reduce it," he said while criticizing the state's transportation master plan. He added that this doesn't mean New Yorkers need to travel less because the state can create better ways for them to get to work, school, and everywhere else.

I'll bite. What exactly are these better options for people who don't live in New York City?

Even New York's own climate planners acknowledge the problem. State climate materials say many New Yorkers depend on single-occupancy vehicles because they have limited access to public transit.

Of course they do. New York is a huge state. Once you get beyond its dense urban centers, the transportation equation changes quickly. The state itself administers rural transit programs specifically to help people in smaller communities reach jobs, schools, health care, and stores.

That doesn't mean nobody should build better public transportation. Build it. If you can give somebody a faster, cheaper, and more convenient way to get where he needs to go, he'll probably use it.

But you can't create a subway by passing a mileage target.

Pay as you go

And this isn't the only vehicle-miles proposal Gounardes has introduced. A separate bill, S4196, would replace some of the gas-tax burden on fuel-efficient vehicles with something entirely different: a tax on every mile they travel on New York's public roads.

The proposal would apply to vehicles rated at least 30 miles per gallon or 30 MPGe. Owners would pay 1.9 cents for every taxable mile driven.

Drive 10,000 miles in New York and that's $190. Drive 15,000 and it's $285.

But here's the part that really caught my attention. To calculate the tax, qualifying vehicles would be required to have an onboard electronic unit installed when the vehicle is registered, re-registered, or renewed. The device would use GPS or comparable technology to determine how many miles the vehicle travels on New York public roads and regularly transmit the taxable mileage to the Department of Taxation and Finance.

The legislation includes privacy protections. It says the unit would report aggregate taxable mileage rather than your exact location, travel times, or individual trips. Drivers of fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles could also claim a credit for the gasoline taxes they continue to pay.

RELATED: Automakers were ready to kill the gas car. Buyers had other ideas.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Unwanted passenger

Good to know — but we're still talking about the state requiring a GPS-capable electronic device in your private vehicle so it can calculate a tax based on how much you drive.

And New York would make sure it's there. The bill would add the device to the equipment checked during the state's annual vehicle inspection. The inspector would record both your odometer mileage and the mileage reported by the onboard unit. Tampering with or disconnecting the device with the intent to evade the tax could bring penalties.

The rationale for a mileage tax isn't difficult to understand. Gasoline taxes help pay for roads. As vehicles become more efficient and EVs buy no gasoline at all, states collect less fuel-tax revenue even though those vehicles still use — and wear — the roads.

Look at the two proposals together. One bill establishes a state policy of reducing the number of miles New Yorkers drive by 20%. Another creates the infrastructure to measure the miles driven by a growing share of cars and charge their owners for every one.

They're separate bills with separate purposes. The Get Around NY Act is aimed at transportation planning and emissions. The mileage-tax bill is aimed at replacing declining gasoline-tax revenue. But if you're a driver, they meet at exactly the same place: your odometer.

And that brings me back to life outside New York City. What happens when you can't reduce your mileage?

Maybe your job is 30 miles away. Maybe the closest specialist your child needs is an hour away. Maybe you're caring for an elderly parent in another town. Maybe your kids play sports. Maybe you live somewhere where "take public transit" means arranging your entire day around a bus that comes a few times rather than every few minutes.

Those miles aren't indulgences. They're life.

There's an enormous difference between giving people alternatives to driving and designing policy around the assumption that they'll drive less.

Give me better public transportation. Give me roads that are safe. Give me communities where people who want to walk or bicycle can do it safely. Give consumers choices.

But before Albany decides New Yorkers should collectively drive 20% fewer miles, I'd like lawmakers to spend some time asking why we're driving those miles in the first place.

Because outside the five boroughs, the answer is often pretty simple. We have somewhere we need to be.

Stallone’s ‘Steps’ looks back on the long, brutal road to ‘Rocky’



Sylvester Stallone is one of America's most recognizable actors. He also stands as a rare representation of sanity in Hollywood, refusing to dance to the industry's carefully choreographed ideological drumbeat.

His new memoir, "The Steps," documents his rather fascinating rise to fame.

Casting agents repeatedly shoved him out of their offices, telling him his voice sounded like a broken garbage disposal and his face looked like a stroke survivor's.

The story starts on July 6, 1946, in a maternity ward in Hell’s Kitchen. The delivery went sideways when a careless doctor dragged him into the world with a pair of forceps, severing a facial nerve and paralyzing the lower left side of his lip, chin, and tongue.

Hangdog sneer

The easily avoidable accident left him with a permanent hangdog sneer and slurred speech, a combination that made childhood an endless gauntlet of brutal teasing. His home life proved equally chaotic, torn between a short-tempered barber father and an oddball mother who dabbled in astrology and DIY medicine.

His parents eventually “shipped” him off to a boarding home, and he bounced between over a dozen different institutions before finishing high school. Teachers saw him as a lost cause, while his peers treated his cartoon-character name as an open invitation to brawls. He routinely answered the mockery with his fists, accumulating bad grades, behavioral warnings, and a growing reputation as a feral misfit.

By the early 1970s, Stallone was stranded in Manhattan with a few dollars in his pocket, sleeping on wooden benches at the Port Authority Bus Terminal when he couldn’t afford rent. To keep from starving, he took on whatever absurd odd jobs came his way. He cleaned out lion cages at the Central Park Zoo, a gig where he lived in constant fear of urine sprays and sharp claws. He worked at a fish market slicing heads off cod, cut hair in a basement using box cutters with hands that “resembled ten bananas connected by foam rubber,” and worked as an usher at the Baronet and Coronet Theatre. He even sold his beloved bull mastiff, Butkus, outside a 7-11, a moment he describes in "The Steps" as his absolute bottom.

RELATED: Mel Gibson has been fighting this fight longer than you think

Ellen DeGeneres/Twitter/Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

Rejection as rocket fuel

His early acting credits were equally unglamorous. Desperate for heat during a brutal winter in a tiny room on 46th Street, he agreed to star in an adult movie called "The Party at Kitty and Stud's" for $200. "The whole thing was an embarrassing debacle," he writes in the book, maintaining a dry, self-deprecating tone about his total lack of hope and dignity. Casting agents repeatedly shoved him out of their offices, telling him his voice sounded like a broken garbage disposal and his face looked like a stroke survivor's.

Stallone used the rejection as rocket fuel, sitting down with a notebook to study screenplays and figure out how stories actually worked.

The turning point came in March 1975, when he watched Muhammad Ali fight Chuck Wepner. Wepner was an obscure boxer who lost the fight, yet managed to knock Ali down and survive 15 punishing rounds. Stallone locked himself in a room for three days and hammered out the screenplay for "Rocky." When producers Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff offered him $350,000 for the script, Stallone refused to sell unless he played the lead role. He had $106 in his bank account, and his wife was pregnant. Still, to his credit, he held firm against every attempt to replace him with an established star like Robert Redford or Ryan O'Neal.

Stubborn to a fault, he got his way and managed to get the film made for under a million dollars. "Rocky" went on to win Best Picture at the 1977 Academy Awards, instantly turning him into a massive movie star.

Stallone eventually bought his dog back for $1,500.

Eye of the tiger

The middle section of "The Steps" tracks his explosive run through the 1980s, but here the narrative loses some of its original momentum. Stallone is most entertaining when he is broke, angry, humiliated, and scheming his way toward the next opportunity. Once the rags become extreme riches, some of that desperate comic energy disappears. There are stretches where a story about an almost pathologically determined outsider turns into the considerably less relatable story of a very famous movie star.

But Stallone taps into his inner Rocky in the final act, reviving the book by confronting his age (80) and mortality with absolute honesty. A churchgoing Catholic, he suggests that although life can be difficult, “you just get stronger the more you fight back and finally realize that God’s greatest gift is your heart and the will to keep going.” It’s a little cliché, but the New Yorker is nothing if not genuine.

He looks back on his career choices with surprising sincerity, admitting when his ego got the best of him during his late 1990s box-office flops. He presents himself not as a genius auteur, but as a relentless, working-class craftsman who understood his own limitations better than his critics did. "The Steps" succeeds because it avoids fawning self-congratulation, standing as an inspiring account of a man who escaped a nightmare to achieve the American dream.

Halloween isn't opening a door to demons. Christians need to stop pretending it is.



It’s that time of year again, when certain well-meaning but misinformed Christians sin against their fellow believers by questioning their salvation and accusing them of inviting demonic activity.

One young woman told me she is 'called' to spend her time looking into these things, so she can warn everyone about the evil of Halloween.

The crime in question? Participating, in any way, in anything related to Halloween. Well, except for denouncing it — the well-meaning/misinformed group enthusiastically participates in things like this:

Diane Schrader

I appreciate the zeal of the people who came up with this. They want people to stop being evil and turn to Jesus.

But there are so many things wrong with this approach.

Let’s unpack some of their base philosophies on this — all of them pretty questionable.

Halloween is evil

The first false assumption is that Halloween is inherently evil.

The history of Halloween is a mash-up of Catholic and pagan traditions. All Hallows' Eve (“hallow” means holy) was the night before All Saints' Day, an explicitly Catholic celebration to remember dead saints, which intersected with pagan harvest time traditions related to the belief that the dead could come back as ghosts — thus the “spooky” imagery of the holiday.

Trick-or-treating seems to have emerged from a medieval British practice called “souling,” where the poor would go door-to-door on November 1 or 2, offering prayers for the dead in exchange for food, often “soul cakes.”

Are some pagan roots evident here? Yep, just like a lot of things in our culture. Our names for the days of the week, for instance, reflect the names of pagan gods — like Thursday is named for the god Thor.

The key point here, though, is that nobody will be worshipping Thor this next Thursday, most likely. Because how something started is largely irrelevant. What matters is how it is today.

Halloween traditions brought to the U.S. by immigrants from Britain, Ireland, and Scotland became increasingly mischievous and destructive in the early 20th century, sometimes leading to outright vandalism or violence. To curb this behavior, in the 1930s, various community groups, civic organizations, parents, and churches began promoting organized, door-to-door treat-collecting for younger children.

Trick-or-treating exploded in popularity after World War II and, as it was heavily marketed by the candy companies, grew into a cultural staple representing good clean fun for America’s kids.

That is what changed, and for the vast majority of Americans, that is where we are today.

So no, Halloween is not inherently evil, even in its history, nor is the American tradition of trick-or-treating.

Light should have nothing to do with darkness ...

We can agree on this one; it’s in the Bible, of course — “what fellowship has light with darkness?”

The problem is, as we just clarified above, that children trick-or-treating, which is 99.99% of Halloween for most American families, is not “darkness.”

Ironically, the misled are actually taking this passage out of context, because it certainly is not arguing that we can’t go out and be around “darkness” (unbelievers). On the contrary, how can we love them if we hide away from them?

The real meaning of the passage surfaces when we read the whole thing:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? —2 Corinthians 6:14

This is prohibiting close attachments with non-Christians that might compromise the Christian's faith — think marriage or perhaps a business partner.

It’s hardly an injunction against going outside on an October evening and chatting with trick-or-treaters.

... but we’re just fascinated with darkness

It is my observation that the misled crowd tends to be more interested in ferreting out sordid aspects of the darkness than they are in bringing light.

Some even boast of having “gone down the rabbit hole” of “research” on Halloween. But it isn’t actual research, or they would at least have some of the basics down (see above, “Halloween is evil” section).

Instead, they grab onto and fearmonger the most horrific (yet undocumented) claims. We’re talking about TikTok videos from highly questionable “pastors,” spurious claims by “ex-witches,” or paragraph after paragraph detailing pagan gods and occult practices — none of this is a good use of time for most Christians.

One young woman told me she is “called” to spend her time looking into these things, so she can warn everyone about the evil of Halloween. She might be called; I’m just not sure who’s doing the calling. Because this is what we’re told to focus on:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is dignified, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, consider these things. —Philippians 4:8

There’s no darkness in that (above) at all!

Anyway, here are a few of the claims repeatedly made “from the dark side.”

CLAIM: You’re worshipping the devil when you trick-or-treat, whether you want to or not! (A lot of credit is given to what satanists have allegedly said about all this.)

FACT-CHECK: You can’t be "tricked" into worshipping the devil.

CLAIM: Halloween is the worst day for human trafficking!

FACT-CHECK: There is zero supporting evidence; there is no “worst day” for human trafficking, according to law enforcement.

CLAIM: Also human sacrifice.

FACT-CHECK: Again, zero supporting evidence for this.

CLAIM: Witches are out casting spells on Halloween; being outside risks having a demon attach to you.

FACT-CHECK: You can’t accidentally pick up a demon; you have to willfully sin to invite that kind of activity.

CLAIM: If your neighbor is a witch or a satanist, the neighbor curses the candy, and that demonic presence comes into your home!

FACT-CHECK: Your neighbors are most likely not witches or satanists. And if they are? “Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.” —1 John 4:4

RELATED: The last ethnic Halloween costume nobody apologizes for

NBC/Getty Images

All demons, all the time

There is a flavor of Christianity that tends to fall into this obsession with darkness, and it reaches its pinnacle in so-called “deliverance ministry.”

Deliverance ministry focuses on casting out demons and tearing down spiritual strongholds and uses language about curses, “soul ties,” and the “legal rights” of demons. Much of this is not biblical. There are people who claim “deliverance” is their gift, and they dig deep into the darkness because of that.

The problem is that there is no such gift in the Bible. Only Jesus and the apostles were able to cast out demons. No instruction about that is given to us, and there is not even the suggestion that we should try to interact with demons in any way. On the contrary, actually, as we’ll see below.

Instead, every believer is given everything we need to win at spiritual warfare, in the fight against the demonic:

  • We are to put on the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18).
  • We are to resist the devil (James 4:7).
  • We are not to give him room in our life at all (Ephesians 4:27).
  • We are to seek God, who tells us we can overcome the world, by simple faith (1 John 5:4).
  • We are to be alert and of sober mind (1 Peter 5:8-10). A magnificent passage, and not a word in there about ordering demons around.

The things I have heard some Christians say about “opening a door to demons” are truly troubling. Touching a crystal opens the door. Stretching your body in a way that yoga teaches opens the door. A pumpkin on your porch opens the door — and the person wasn’t even talking about a carved pumpkin — just a pumpkin. Or my very (least) favorite: Using alternative medicine opens the door.

Some of the most outspoken purveyors of this kind of thinking are people who were formerly involved in the occult. I respect their desire to stay far from anything that reminds them of their old lives. But they overstep when they blindly condemn others for a pumpkin, a stretch, or a trip to a functional medicine provider.

Believers, of course, cannot “accidentally dance with the devil.” We are sealed in Christ, who never lets us go, as multiple Scriptures attest. We have nothing to fear from demons while we walk in His light. We can walk outside on Halloween night, and we can even bring home a Hershey bar and not fret that it’s “cursed.”

However, Christians can certainly make choices that open them to satanic influence. Mindfully disobeying God puts you in a dangerous place. But we are bought and paid for by the blood of Christ, and obeying the Scriptures above is our ticket to spiritual safety.

The bad attitude of the demon-obsessed

It shouldn’t be too surprising that people who get caught up in demon obsession are going to respond very negatively to being told they’re on the wrong track.

But they prove they’re wrong with how they interact with the rest of us. Because it is wrong to demonize (pun intended) fellow believers who participate in neighborhood trick-or-treating. The spiritual pride of those who think they have it right leads to them saying some pretty appalling things.

This guy on the right below is a prime example, and Red Pen Logic does an excellent job of explaining how he’s wrong in this brief video.

The 'Halloween Halters'

As for the “Halloween Halt” event advertised in the graphic at the beginning of this article, I think it’s pretty obvious that accosting families with children to tell them that their Halloween celebration is satanic is highly unlikely to win anyone to the cause of Christ, but it will certainly embitter, anger, and antagonize moms and dads just trying to enjoy this cultural tradition with their little ones.

Two truths the Halloween halters and haters are missing:

  • God put you in your neighborhood for a reason.
  • One night a year, God literally brings your neighbors to your door.

This is called a gospel opportunity, and next week I’ll share some ideas on how to make it truly a night of light.

This essay previously appeared at the She Speaks Truth Substack.

Did these 6 movies about Satan accidentally summon him to their sets?



Horror has always had a respectability problem. But filmmakers eventually discovered a useful trick for getting around it: Make the monster a metaphor.

The creature in "The Babadook" isn't merely a boogeyman under the bed; it's grief and depression. "It Follows" has been read as everything from an allegory for sexually transmitted disease to a story about sexual trauma and mortality. Jordan Peele's "Get Out" turned body-snatching horror into an examination of race and liberal paternalism. Even "Hereditary," which gives us actual demons, comes wrapped in grief, mental illness, and inherited trauma.

Moore was said to have been decapitated, horribly echoing the death Richardson had devised for the movie.

Nothing wrong with that. Horror works best when it gives physical form to intangible fears.

But the metaphor also provides a convenient escape hatch. Whatever battles of principalities and powers we see on screen, we know the real horror lurks in our minds — best addressed with modern, morally neutral techniques like therapy.

Asking us to believe in monsters that stand for nothing more than themselves — real monsters, in other words — takes us uncomfortably close to an idea Christianity has maintained for 2,000 years: Supernatural evil actually exists.

It's no wonder filmmakers who want their commercial success with a side of art-house respectability don't often go there.

But there might be another reason as well. When filmmakers do attempt to depict the devil, he has a curious way of making himself known through strange disruptions to the production: fires, equipment failures, injuries, even death.

Almost as if he would prefer to be dismissed as a fairy tale.

Here are six movies that took supernatural evil seriously — and the strange things that happened while people were making them.

1. 'The Exorcist'

If any movie were ever cursed, surely it was "The Exorcist." William Friedkin's 1973 adaptation of William Peter Blatty's novel has plenty to say about a broken family, psychiatric medicine, and a priest suffering a crisis of faith.

But when Regan MacNeil starts speaking in strange voices and contorting her body, "The Exorcist" is blunt about the cause: demonic possession. Friedkin brings an almost documentary realism to material that might otherwise have been safely dismissed as gothic fantasy. Audiences fainted, vomited, and fled theaters. The movie became a cultural phenomenon.

And if the stories that emerged from the production are to be believed, audiences weren't the only ones disturbed by its unflinching treatment of evil. The trouble started before Friedkin had even begun shooting in Iraq. A statue of Pazuzu, the demon who possesses Regan, had been built in Burbank and shipped to Mosul for the movie's opening sequence. It never arrived.

Somehow, Pazuzu ended up in Denmark. “It was lost,” Friedkin recalled years later. Shooting in Iraq was delayed for weeks while somebody presumably worked out how to get the demon to the right country.

Things got worse back in New York. In the early hours of the morning, a fire tore through the set of the MacNeil house at 20th Century Fox's studio on West 54th Street.

“The production manager called me at 4 a.m. and said, ‘Don't bother to come to work today,’” Friedkin later recalled.

“I said, ‘Why? Am I fired?’”

No. The set had burned to the ground. Well, most of it had. Regan's bedroom — the room where Friedkin was filming the exorcism — survived. Investigators never established what caused the fire. Friedkin later blamed a pigeon that had flown into a light box.

Production shut down for six weeks while the set was rebuilt. Then Ellen Burstyn hurt her back. During the scene in which Regan strikes her mother, a stuntman attached to a wire was supposed to yank Burstyn backward. After several takes, Burstyn told Friedkin that the stuntman was pulling too hard.

“Well, it has to look real,” she remembered him replying.

On the next take, she landed hard on her coccyx and screamed in genuine pain. Friedkin kept the camera rolling. Burstyn later summed up her relationship with the director rather neatly: “He was always great with me. Except when he permanently injured my spine.”

Burstyn went on to do many more films. Others in the cast weren't so lucky. Jack MacGowran, who plays director Burke Dennings — murdered by the possessed Regan in the movie — finished his work and died of influenza at 54. Vasiliki Maliaros, who played Father Karras' mother, also died during production.

In the 1998 BBC documentary "The Fear of God: 25 Years of 'The Exorcist,'" Burstyn remembers others connected with the production dying as well: the newborn child of an assistant cameraman, the man responsible for refrigerating the bedroom set, and a night watchman.

None died in accidents while shooting the movie. But there were enough deaths, injuries, delays, and other mishaps that people began talking about a curse.

The actor playing the conflicted priest and trained psychiatrist who attempts to save Regan got a more explicit warning. In "The Fear of God," Jason Miller recalls eating and studying his lines at the Jesuit residence while filming at Georgetown. One day, an elderly priest handed him a medal of the Blessed Virgin and asked whether Miller had ever heard of “intervention.”

“If you do anything on the devil, anything at all on the devil to reveal him as the trickster that he is,” Miller remembered the priest telling him, “he will seek retribution against you, or he will even try to stop what you're trying to do to unmask him.”

The priest told Miller the medal would protect him.

About three days later, Miller was walking through the Jesuit residence on his way to dinner when something caught his eye in one of the side rooms. He went back and looked, only to see the old priest lying there in a casket.

By 1974, Castle of Frankenstein magazine was running an article with the wonderfully unsubtle headline The Curse That Hangs Over "The Exorcist."

Eventually, Friedkin called the Rev. Thomas Bermingham, the Jesuit priest serving as a technical adviser to the movie.

“Would you come down and exorcise the set?” Bermingham recalled Friedkin asking in "The Fear of God."

Bermingham refused. “I don't want to increase anxiety or anything like that,” he told him. But Bermingham wasn't laughing off the possibility that they had gotten themselves into something strange.

“There was definitely a feeling that it could happen,” he says in the documentary. “We were playing around with something. I even felt it. I felt we were playing around with something I shouldn't be playing around with.”

He blessed the production instead, just in case.

2. 'The Passion of the Christ'

Mel Gibson's 2004 "The Passion of the Christ" isn't a horror movie, although anyone who has sat through the scourging scene might dispute the point.

But neither is it the kind of "faith-based" film that confines the battle between sin and redemption to the dialogue. Gibson keeps the personification of evil in the frame.

Satan stalks Jesus through Gethsemane. He moves through the crowd as Christ suffers. During the scourging, he carries a grotesque child. After Christ's death, Gibson cuts away from Calvary to show Satan defeated. On screen, Satan can only howl in rage. What happened off screen suggests a more active opposition.

Jim Caviezel, the man playing Jesus, was struck by lightning. Producer Steve McEveety recalled seeing the bolt hit him from roughly 100 feet away. Assistant director Jan Michelini was struck too.

Which would already make for a pretty good story, except Michelini had reportedly been struck by lightning once before during the same production.

Caviezel later joked that the strike lit him up “like a Christmas tree.” Contemporary reports said neither man was seriously injured.

Caviezel had previously turned down three opportunities to play Jesus. He accepted Gibson's offer because, he later said, he sensed the director's commitment to telling the Passion story “without restraint.”

Be careful what you pray for.

The lightning strike was far from the only hardship. Caviezel separated his shoulder carrying the cross. He developed hypothermia while hanging nearly naked in bitter winds during the crucifixion scenes, followed by pneumonia and a lung infection. The elaborate makeup left his skin raw. During the scourging, one of the actors missed the protective board behind Caviezel and struck him across the back hard enough to tear the skin.

At one particularly miserable point, hanging on the cross in the cold, Caviezel remembered crying out to God:

“So you don't want this movie to be made?”

Caviezel kept making it anyway; appropriately enough, the suffering itself began to serve the movie. He received Communion daily, prayed the rosary during the long hours in makeup, and went to confession during production.

Caviezel also came to see his suffering as part of what made the performance work. Recreating the crucifixion on a comfortable soundstage, he later said, would have lost some of its “effect and reality.” The cold, the injuries, the exhaustion — things that might have stopped another production — became part of the movie Gibson and Caviezel had set out to make.

3. 'The Omen'

If "The Exorcist" created the cursed-movie template, "The Omen" perfected it.

The 1976 movie is even less interested in metaphor. The little boy at the center of the story really is the Antichrist, and the people who figure this out have a nasty habit of dying before they can do much about it.

Bob Munger, the advertising executive who helped originate the premise, later recalled warning producer Harvey Bernhard about making the movie in the first place.

“If the devil's greatest single weapon is to be invisible,” Munger told him, “and you're going to do something which takes away his invisibility to millions of people, he won't want that to happen.”

Bernhard eventually became convinced Munger was right. “The devil was at work,” he said years later.

The stories began before audiences had even seen the movie. In April 1976, New York magazine was already reporting that Gregory Peck's plane had been struck by lightning while he was traveling to London to make "The Omen." The magazine named screenwriter David Seltzer and director Richard Donner in connection with troubled flights as well. Executive producer Mace Neufeld later recalled a lightning strike on his own flight. The surviving accounts make it difficult to say exactly how many people were struck by lightning, which is not ordinarily a problem a movie production has.

The close calls continued once Neufeld reached London. He later recalled walking out of his London hotel with his wife when a bomb exploded about a block and a half away. The couple also had reservations at Scott's, the Mayfair restaurant bombed by the IRA in November 1975. Both bombings are real; Neufeld recounted his brushes with them in the 2020 documentary series "Cursed Films."

For one of the movie's most memorable scenes, Damien visits a safari park and the baboons go berserk at the sight of him. The sequence was filmed at Windsor Safari Park. During the production period, 22-year-old keeper Sidney Bamford was killed there by a tiger. Later curse accounts claimed the keeper died immediately after the filmmakers shot the sequence. Contemporary reports establish the tiger attack, but not that timing or that Bamford personally worked with the movie.

And then there was the airplane the filmmakers didn't take. Donner later recalled that the production had intended to use an aircraft for aerial filming, only to lose it at the last minute when it was reassigned to Chinese customers. According to the story, the plane subsequently crashed.

There was a remarkably similar accident during production. On November 20, 1975, a Hawker Siddeley executive jet carrying a Chinese delegation took off from Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, flew into a flock of lapwings, lost power in both engines, overran the runway, and struck a passing car.

All nine people aboard the aircraft survived. All six people in the car died.

The timing and the Chinese passengers make it a plausible match for the crash Donner remembered. What the investigation doesn't establish is that "The Omen" crew had ever booked that particular plane.

The strangest story came after "The Omen" was finished.

Special-effects designer John Richardson had helped create one of the movie's most gruesome deaths. Photographer Keith Jennings is standing by the side of a road when a sheet of glass slides from a truck and takes off his head. Richardson's effects team accomplished it with a rigged dummy and replica of actor David Warner's head.

In August 1976, Richardson was in the Netherlands working on "A Bridge Too Far" when he was involved in a car crash. Richardson survived. Sculptor Liz Moore, traveling with him, did not. Biographical accounts date her death to August 13.

Over the years, the accident acquired two details that made it irresistible to anyone writing about the curse of "The Omen." Moore was said to have been decapitated, horribly echoing the death Richardson had devised for the movie. And Richardson was said to have emerged from the wreck near a road sign reading:

Ommen — 66.6 km.

The crash and Moore's death are well attested. Those two grisly details are not. No contemporary report or official record located in our research establishes that Moore was decapitated. Richardson did later recall a roadside marker involving sixes and a road leading toward Ommen, but the famous “Ommen — 66.6 km” sign has never been independently verified.

By then it hardly mattered. "The Omen" had acquired a curse almost as elaborate as its screenplay.

Fox eventually made the legend part of the product. By 2000, the DVD included a featurette called "Curse or Coincidence?"

4. 'The Possession'

The 2012 movie "The Possession" had something most demon movies don't: a supposedly genuine haunted object behind it.

The “dybbuk box” was an old wine cabinet whose strange history had first attracted widespread attention on eBay. Kevin Mannis supplied a terrifying history involving a Holocaust survivor and a malicious Jewish spirit. Owners supposedly experienced nightmares, illnesses, and other misfortunes.

The story spread online, made its way into newspapers, and eventually became the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

Then odd things started happening on the movie.

Director Ole Bornedal recalled production lights exploding even though they weren't switched on. About a week after filming ended, he said, a warehouse containing props from the movie burned; Bornedal said he never learned what caused the fire.

Years later came a fairly devastating blow to the legend: Mannis admitted that he had invented the box's elaborate backstory. So much for the haunted box.

Except Mannis inventing a story about a wine cabinet doesn't explain why Bornedal said lights exploded. It doesn't explain the warehouse fire either.

Bornedal himself offered the best skeptical argument. “Would we have noticed if this had been a ‘Love Story’? Perhaps not.”

RELATED: Inside the mind of a Catholic exorcist: Fr. Chad Ripperger talks shop with Shawn Ryan

Photo by SIMON WOHLFAHRT/AFP via Getty Images

5. 'The Omen' (2006)

Thirty years after the original "Omen," Fox decided to make it again, if only to take advantage of a uniquely demonic release date: June 6, 2006, or 6/6/06.

Director John Moore had been raised Catholic, and maybe that's why he found the strange happenings that befell him so unnerving.

Two days of footage involving the discovery of Damien's 666 birthmark were destroyed. Moore received an airfare costing exactly $666. And a promotional videotape apparently wound up overwritten with ESPN footage even though, Moore said, the machine wasn't capable of recording.

Moore was disturbed enough to wonder whether making the movie might offend God. Eventually, he reasoned that a movie acknowledging the existence of evil necessarily acknowledged the existence of good.

As for Fox, the curse was great publicity. Although perhaps even the box-office bean counters were a little shaken by the movie's first-day box office:

$12,633,666.

What were the odds? Pretty good, as it turned out. Fox distribution executive Bruce Snyder admitted that the studio had adjusted the reported estimate to give it the demonic final digits.

“We were having a little fun,” he said.

6. 'The Deliverance'

By the time Lee Daniels made "The Deliverance" in 2024, the old stories had become part of Hollywood folklore.

Daniels had read about what supposedly happened during the making of "The Exorcist" and "Poltergeist." His Episcopalian mother warned him about making a movie dealing with demonic evil.

“She was just like, ‘You are a portal. You work from a place of groundedness, and your soul is open, and I don't want anything bad happening to you,’” Daniels recalled.

He took precautions. The production brought in an ordained Christian who conducted deliverances on set. Daniels also instituted daily prayer circles.

“We prayed every day,” he said.

Netflix HR reminded him that Christian prayer couldn't be mandatory. Daniels told anyone who didn't want to participate that they were free to leave.

“There were a few that left, but for the most part, most of them wanted to be covered by the blood of Jesus,” he recalled. “They knew what was up.”

The precautions didn't prevent "The Deliverance" from acquiring a curse story of its own.

Daniels' sister had appeared in every movie he made as his “good luck charm.” For "The Deliverance," she appeared in a scene with Glenn Close involving chemotherapy.

Two days later, Daniels said, his sister was diagnosed with lung cancer.

“My dog died on set,” he added.

Mo'Nique had a more explicable brush with the supposed curse. While filming an outdoor scene involving a demon, Mo'Nique said material being blown around the set made it difficult for her to breathe. Afterward, she was hospitalized with an enlarged thyroid.

“It was a lot of things happening with ‘The Deliverance,’” she recalled.

None of this proves that anything supernatural was happening. Mo'Nique herself described a perfectly physical reason for becoming ill. Cancer diagnoses and dead dogs require no demonic explanation.

But half a century after "The Exorcist," Daniels went into another movie about demonic possession worried enough about the old curse stories to pray over his set every day and bring in someone to perform deliverances.

Then his sister got cancer, his dog died, and one of his stars wound up in the hospital.

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



John Cleese must feel very lonely.

Not only is the Monty Python alum virtually alone in calling out the inconvenient ills of British society, but he rarely gets support from his fellow stars.

It’s climate change alarmism run wild, a shocking project from an actor who aggressively avoids political hot takes.

Cowards, the lot of 'em.

Now, things could be getting serious. A British Muslim group has reported Cleese to the authorities for his “anti-Islamic” comments. It’s not funny. Just ask Graham Linehan. The British comic/writer got arrested last year for his thoughts on transgenderism.

Will Cleese be next? Just know that if he’s sent to the hoosegow, free speech “warriors” like Jimmy Kimmel and Howard Stern will remain whisper-silent …

Woody's buzz

Woody Allen is heading back to work at the age of 90.

The quasi-canceled auteur is prepping his next film, a story he describes as “a comedy with romance, intrigue, and infidelity.”

The more things change, right?

Except some things have changed for Allen. A-listers now flee his projects, fearful of the MeToo blowback. Did Allen inappropriately touch his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow many years ago? For a while, Hollywood shrugged off the accusations. Then, after the #MeToo revolution, “name” stars stopped working with him.

There’s an easy fix for him. All he needs to do is shout, “Free Palestine,” and he could be back in the industry’s good graces again …

Green party

Hulk still mad!

Mark Ruffalo has been obsessed with the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger for some time. "Merger bad!" he cried from every possible venue.

Now, with the deal close to fruition, he’s still sounding off.

“This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech, and cost people their jobs — it is a bad deal for this country and should never have been approved.”

Huh. We don't remember Ruffalo tearing his trousers over Disney’s acquisition of Fox, or the rampant attacks on free speech during the woke era ...

Hulk hypocrite!

RELATED: 'View' host questions Patrick Clancy's divorce: 'You know, in sickness and in health'

Lou Rocco/Boston Globe/Getty Images

S is for 'socialism'

Jon Stewart is getting a tad touchy.

The far-Left “Daily Show” host has been kissing up to socialists for quite a while now. Watching him lob softballs at Zohran Mamdani gave us one undeniable thought. “Get a room.”

Now, he’s recoiling at being labeled a socialist.

And, you know, now the buzzword on, on the right is, oh, so you're, you know, you want socialism. Well, no, I want to stop privatizing things that don't work well in a market system like health care, like Medicare, like all those things that are getting ruined by privatization and insurance, and all those different markets and rebalance so that labor gets a fairer shake.”

Fair shake? He blasts income inequality and is a millionaire many times over. And if George Soros graced his Comedy Central studio, he would ask even more gentle questions than the ones that greeted Mamdani.

If you don’t want the “S” label on your jersey, Jon, maybe ask a tough question or two of the next DSA member who enters your studio …

Goofy 'Globes'

There’s plenty to laugh at regarding the annual Golden Globes gala. The awards remain in the shadow of the Academy Awards, for starters. Nominees are known to hit the bar, and hard, between announcements. Plus, unusual nominees and bizarre categories are still the norm.

Now this.

“Obsession,” the year’s most unlikely blockbuster, will compete for Globe honors in the Comedy/Musical category. The horror film isn’t remotely funny, beyond some gallows humor that runs through many a horror tale. And if there was a musical number between star Inde Navarrette’s murderous rages, we missed it.

As long as the Globes cling to such insane categories, they will remain a punching bag for all things Hollywood …

'Digger' in deep

Steven Spielberg famously praised Tom Cruise for “saving” Hollywood with “Top Gun: Maverick.” The blockbuster coaxed moviegoers back to theaters after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, Cruise may be an anchor around the neck of a major movie studio.

Warner Bros., about to be gobbled up by Paramount, spent a reported $180 million on Cruise’s new film, “Digger.” The black comedy casts Cruise as a Southern oil tycoon whose drilling station sparks an ecological panic.

It’s climate change alarmism run wild, a shocking project from an actor who aggressively avoids political hot takes.

The film is getting some awful reviews, deservedly so, and could lose Warner Bros. millions.

How many? The conservative estimate is at least $100 million. Crunch the numbers on a cocktail napkin, and you might want to double that figure. “Digger” is looking at a $12 million opening, at best.

Once word of mouth kicks in, it’s good night, Gracie.

Did Hollywood's onetime savior just dig an iconic studio's grave?

Car makers just saved BILLIONS in costs — but will buyers see the savings?



Attention car buyers: For once, Washington has some good news for you.

The federal government has finalized a major change to fuel-economy rules that could make vehicles less expensive for automakers to build. The new standards are projected to produce a fleet-wide average of about 34.9 mpg by model year 2031, down from the 50.4 mpg trajectory under the previous rules.

If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings.

The Transportation Department estimates the change will reduce manufacturers' average cost by about $1,300 per vehicle and save Americans roughly $138 billion over five years.

Room to maneuver

But the number that jumped out at me is $60.6 billion.

That's how much the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projects automakers' technology costs will decline through 2031 compared with the previous standards. General Motors alone accounts for an estimated $20.4 billion, followed by Stellantis at $6.6 billion, Ford at $5.8 billion, Toyota at $4.5 billion, and Honda at $4.1 billion.

Those aren't small numbers. Change the economics of building a car that much, and eventually I want to see the difference on the showroom floor.

For years, increasingly aggressive fuel-economy requirements pushed automakers toward additional fuel-saving technology and complicated compliance strategies. Electric vehicles were one way of improving fleet averages, and product planning increasingly had to account for what Washington demanded as well as what customers wanted.

Meanwhile, buying a new vehicle has become painfully expensive. The average new-vehicle transaction price hit $50,089 in August, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Now automakers have more room to maneuver. NHTSA says its new rules give manufacturers more flexibility to build vehicles based on customer demand. The agency is also changing vehicle-classification rules beginning with the 2030 model year. Under the current system, NHTSA says manufacturers have incentives to modify vehicles so they qualify as light trucks, while hatchbacks, wagons, and other smaller vehicles are discouraged.

That's the sort of regulatory change car buyers may actually notice.

Automakers don't build vehicles simply because somebody in Washington thinks they should exist. They build them when the economics work.

California split

California has been pushing in the opposite direction. Its Advanced Clean Cars II program required manufacturers to meet increasingly stringent zero-emission-vehicle targets on the way to 100% by 2035. And California's influence doesn't stop at the state line. The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California's vehicle-emission standards, and several have done so.

Congress moved against those rules last year. On June 12, 2025, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 88 into law, disapproving the EPA waiver that allowed California to enforce Advanced Clean Cars II.

California immediately sued, arguing that Congress had improperly used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Clean Air Act waiver. That legal fight has continued, so the underlying dispute over California's authority isn't finished.

For car buyers, though, the direction of federal policy has plainly changed. Manufacturers have substantially more freedom under the new federal fuel-economy rules to decide which powertrains they want to sell.

My position on that hasn't changed. If you want an EV, buy one. If a hybrid works better for you, buy that. If you need a gasoline-powered SUV or pickup, you should be able to buy that too.

Let the cars compete.

RELATED: Welcome to the new traffic stop, where it's your word against AI's

NurPhoto/Getty Images

No free pass

But I'm not giving automakers a free pass. If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings. I'm not expecting $1,300 to disappear overnight from every window sticker. Automakers still have factories, employees, suppliers, research and development, and shareholders.

But don't tell us deregulation makes cars cheaper to build and then expect consumers not to look for the evidence.

Give us better prices. Give us more equipment. Bring back vehicles that didn't make financial sense under the old rules. Build the smaller cars, hatchbacks, wagons, pickups, and SUVs people will actually buy.

And let competition sort out the rest.

There is a cost on the other side of the ledger. NHTSA projects that the less stringent standards will increase fuel costs by more than $1,600 over the life of a vehicle compared with the rules they replace. The agency also projects 4.6% more gasoline consumption through 2050.

That's worth considering, especially if you drive a lot of miles or own a large truck or SUV.

Gas prices are high right now too. But today's pump price isn't necessarily tomorrow's. Oil production changes. Markets change. Wars end and new ones begin. We're going to dig into where gasoline prices are headed in a future article because that deserves its own investigation.

Right now, I'm interested in something easier to measure. Will cheaper compliance actually mean cheaper cars?

Automakers now face tens of billions less in projected technology costs. If that really gives them more freedom to build what customers want, eventually the person walking into the dealership ought to see it.

The rules changed. Now show us the cars — and the savings.

After 800 years, why do we still treat St. Francis as a glorified garden gnome?



One of the first things I did when we moved into our semi-furnished rental last year was place a 12-inch concrete statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary — one of the few possessions I'd recovered from the ashes of our house in the Palisades — by the front door.

I thought the place needed a brazenly Catholic touch to counteract the tasteful Westside L.A. “spirituality” already on display: the Native American kitsch, the Henry Miller quote in the powder room, the reclining Buddha in the garden by the front door.

The closer Francis drew to Christ, the more intensely Catholic he became.

Never mind that next to the Buddha the owner had already put one of the Church's most famous saints: a tonsured St. Francis of Assisi, cradling a dove in his hands, rabbits gathered around the birdbath at his feet.

That Francis was even welcome at such an ecumenical gathering seemed to confirm my general impression of him as a kind of generic Christian Zen master. The statue looked like a glorified garden gnome to me.

Without even realizing it, I'd bought into modernity's slow domestication of one of the most radical Christians who ever lived.

Sainthood without sanctity

G.K. Chesterton noticed the problem more than a century ago. Modern admirers, he wrote, had learned to “appreciate the saint almost without the sanctity.”

Francis did not grow up poor. He was born in Assisi in 1181 or 1182, the son of a prosperous cloth merchant. As a young man, he enjoyed fine clothes, spent money freely, and dreamed not of feeding sparrows but of military glory.

Around the age of 20, he went to war against neighboring Perugia, was captured after Assisi's defeat, and spent months as a prisoner. Illness followed. Another attempt at a military career ended with Francis turning back before he had really begun it.

His conversion came slowly, through humiliation, failure, illness, and prayer.

Look at one of those garden statues of Francis, surrounded by birds and rabbits, and it's easy to imagine sharing at least a little in his saintliness. I like animals. I can be nice to a bird.

But Francis learned to love God's creation from the bottom up, beginning with nature at its most capriciously cruel and monstrous: leprosy.

Sweetness of soul and body

The disease could horribly disfigure the human body, and in Francis's world, its sufferers lived largely apart from everyone else. Francis, like everyone else, was repulsed by them.

Thomas of Celano, his earliest biographer, says that Francis once found even the sight of leper houses unbearable. If he spotted one from two miles away, he would cover his nose with his hands.

Then, Celano writes, Francis encountered a leper and did what would previously have been unthinkable: He approached the man and kissed him.

Francis' own account is less dramatic but probably more revealing. “The Lord himself led me among them,” he wrote near the end of his life. He began showing them mercy, and what had once seemed bitter became “sweetness of soul and body.”

Celano tells us what that mercy looked like. Francis went to live among lepers, washing them and cleaning the pus from their sores.

To repair the Church

According to Franciscan tradition, Francis was later praying before a crucifix in the crumbling church of San Damiano outside Assisi when he heard Christ tell him to repair His church. Francis, quite reasonably, took this literally, rebuilding San Damiano and helping restore other dilapidated churches around Assisi. Only later would the command acquire its more famous second meaning. Francis would spend the rest of his life repairing the Church in a rather more ambitious sense.

His new life brought him into increasingly bitter conflict with his father. Pietro Bernardone had spent years building a prosperous business and raising a son who now seemed determined to give the proceeds away. The dispute culminated in dramatic fashion. Standing before the bishop of Assisi, Francis surrendered his claim to his father's property and stripped off the clothes his father had provided him. The bishop covered the naked young man with his cloak.

The movement that formed around Francis eventually became the Order of Friars Minor. Its members worked, prayed, preached, cared for the sick, and lived without the ordinary security provided by possessions. Francis himself insisted on manual labor. “I worked with my hands, and I still desire to work,” he recalled near the end of his life.

Chesterton put the intensity of his asceticism more colorfully: “He devoured fasting as a man devours food.”

The peace of Christ

None of this means the familiar Francis of birds and flowers is a fraud. Francis really did possess an extraordinary love for creation. His "Canticle of the Creatures" praises God through Brother Sun, Sister Moon, wind, water, fire, and “our Sister Mother Earth.” The poem later supplied the title of Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical Laudato si’.

But Brother Sun and Sister Moon did not emerge from a pleasant afternoon spent admiring the Umbrian countryside. Francis composed the first part of the "Canticle" near the end of his life, sick and suffering at San Damiano.

When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, his friend Cardinal Claudio Hummes embraced him and said, “Don't forget the poor!” Bergoglio later recalled that he immediately thought of Francis of Assisi — the man of poverty, peace, and creation. He became the first pope to take the name Francis.

Visiting Assisi later that year, he addressed the Francis most of us think we know.

“Franciscan peace is not something saccharine,” the pope said. Nor, he added, was it “a kind of pantheistic harmony with forces of the cosmos.”

Behind enemy lines

Pope Francis' contention that "the peace of Saint Francis is the peace of Christ” helps illuminate one of the most striking episodes of Francis' life.

In 1219, while Christian and Muslim armies were fighting the Fifth Crusade in Egypt, Francis crossed the battle lines near Damietta and entered the camp of Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil.

An eyewitness account helps us understand how extraordinary this was. Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre, wrote the following year that this unarmed friar had walked into enemy territory in the middle of a war and preached to the Muslims for several days. The sultan eventually had him returned safely to the Christian lines.

What Francis and al-Kamil said to each other is harder to know. Later accounts supplied increasingly elaborate details, including Francis offering to undergo an ordeal by fire.

But we do know what Francis thought friars should do among Muslims, because he wrote it down. They could live among non-Christians “without quarrels or disputes,” he instructed, acknowledging themselves as Christians. Or when they believed it pleased God, they could explicitly proclaim the Christian faith. Francis had walked unarmed across a battlefield to do exactly that.

Closing the gap

Francis' quieter contributions to Christianity proved just as enduring. In 1223, at Greccio, Francis arranged a manger with hay, an ox, and a donkey so worshipers could contemplate the conditions in which Christ had been born. A priest celebrated Mass over the manger. While there were no statues playing Mary, Joseph, or the infant Jesus, the celebration nevertheless became the ancestor of the Christmas crèche now found in homes and churches around the world.

Greccio also tells us something about the peculiar intensity of Francis' mysticism. Again and again, he seemed determined to collapse the distance between himself and the physical life of Christ. At Greccio, he wanted people to encounter Bethlehem almost as if they had been there: the hay, the animals, the feeding trough, the poverty into which Christ had been born.

A year later, at La Verna, that identification with Christ became more mysterious — and, if the Franciscan accounts are true, physical. During a mountain retreat, Francis experienced a vision of the crucified Christ and received wounds corresponding to the wounds of the crucifixion — the stigmata. The claim did not first surface centuries later. Brother Elias announced the wounds in a letter sent after Francis' death, and Thomas of Celano described them in the biography he wrote for Francis' canonization.

Francis himself left no account of receiving them.

RELATED: Pope Leo XIV: The right leader for a church in crisis

Mondadori Portfolio/Getty Images

Brother Fire

By then, his body was falling apart. Francis was losing his sight to a painful disease of the eyes. Doctors tried plasters and eye washes. They opened his veins to bleed him. His condition only grew worse. Finally, a physician proposed something more drastic: burning the flesh around his failing eye with a red-hot iron.

When the doctor placed the instrument in the fire, the man who had written of Brother Sun and Sister Moon extended his friendship to the very element about to cause him terrible pain.

“My Brother Fire,” Francis addressed it, asking it to “be courtly to me in this hour.”

The hot iron was drawn across his face from his ear toward his eyebrow. It didn't work. Near death, according to Thomas of Celano, Francis asked his brothers to lay him naked on the bare ground so he could greet yet another member of his family of creation: “our Sister Bodily Death." On the evening of October 3, 1226, at the Portiuncula, she arrived. Francis was probably 44 or 45 years old. Two years later, Pope Gregory IX declared him a saint.

Today, October 3, marks exactly 800 years since Francis' death. Few Catholic saints have traveled as far outside Catholicism as Francis. Environmentalists claim his love of creation. Peace activists invoke his encounter with the sultan. Protestants have found plenty to admire too. Christianity Today has included him among its “131 Christians Everyone Should Know.” One evangelical writer simply called him “our Francis, too.”

And of course, he turns up beside Buddhas in Los Angeles gardens.

Catholic to the core

But the Church is observing his 800th anniversary in unmistakably Catholic fashion. At the direction of Pope Leo XIV, a special Jubilee Year of St. Francis began January 10 and continues through January 10, 2027. The Apostolic Penitentiary is offering Catholics a plenary indulgence for pilgrimages to designated Franciscan churches and other places connected to Francis, accompanied by the prescribed prayers and observances and the usual conditions of confession, Communion, and prayer for the pope's intentions.

A plenary indulgence is not the first thing that comes to mind when most people look at the little friar holding the bird. But neither, probably, is Francis' "Testament."

Francis dictated the document near the end of his life, partly to make sure the movement he was leaving behind remained recognizably Catholic. There he writes of his reverence for priests “according to the manner of the holy Roman Church.” He says he sees in this world nothing bodily of Christ except the Eucharist, which he wants “honored above all things.” He recalls that when God first gave him brothers, he wrote down their way of life and “the Lord Pope confirmed it for me.”

The "Testament" ends by telling his friars to keep it alongside their Rule and read the two together, so that they might observe the Rule “in a more Catholic manner.”

You don't need a specific creed to admire Francis, or even to follow him for quite a distance. But follow Francis far enough, and you eventually find yourself at the threshold of the Church and all it contains: the Eucharist, priests, confession, obedience, the pope.

At the same time, his example strips away centuries of polemic and invites us to see the Church more clearly. Here was a man almost comically ill-suited to the idea that Christianity is fundamentally about clericalism, bureaucracy, or institutional power. He owned nothing. He wasn't a priest. He preached to lepers and Muslims, slept on the ground, rebuilt ruined churches with his hands, and founded a movement whose very name emphasized the littleness of its members.

And yet the closer he drew to Christ, the more intensely Catholic he became.

Chesterton saw in that relationship something of the mystery of the Church itself: a human institution that somehow provides a path to the divine. “The casket that was locked in Palestine can be unlocked in Umbria,” he wrote, “for the Church is the keeper of the keys.”

Is this why everyone gets into fights at Taco Bell?



The citizenry is mad at Taco Bell.

What started as a meme has morphed into a social commentary on the economy and corporate greed.

'Prices for almost every major fast-food chain had exceeded inflation.'

Bean counters

What started as a meme has morphed into a small economic referendum after a 20-year comparison of Taco Bell menu prices began circulating on social media.

The post contrasted purported 2006 prices with what customers pay today. A crunchy taco, according to the graphic, went from 69 cents to $1.99. A Crunchwrap Supreme went from $1.89 to $6.49.

"This doesn't even take into account the shrinkflation factor," one user complained. "All these items are smaller, have less filling, or just flat out taste worse than they used to."

Another remembered getting two double-decker tacos and a medium soda for $2.99.

In the end, the fast-food industry in the United States has become predominantly known for two things: fights and overpriced food.

For the latter, the prices are outpacing inflation. A 2024 analysis by FinanceBuzz looked at 10 longstanding menu items at a dozen major fast-food chains and compared their prices with a decade earlier. Every chain it studied had raised prices faster than overall inflation over that period, which was roughly 32.5%, with Taco Bell being one of the biggest culprits at 81%.

Fast food, in other words, really did get expensive unusually fast.

RELATED: Want to avoid fixing Canada's problems? Just blame Trump.

Marcin Golba/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Big Mac attack

Historically, brands have blamed "increased commodity costs" and labor costs on the spike in food prices.

Economists Orley Ashenfelter and Štěpán Jurajda studied wage rates and Big Mac prices at nearly every McDonald's in the United States between 2016 and 2020. They found that increases in minimum wages were passed almost entirely into higher restaurant prices.

Their estimate suggests that a 10% increase in the minimum wage raises the price of a Big Mac by about 1.4%.

The president of McDonald's USA said in 2024 that salaries, food, and paper had increased about 40% in the past five years, as did the average price of McDonald's menu items.

Portillo's CEO said that same year that prices in each market have to go up to cover the cost of labor commiserate with minimum wage increases, while Chipotle's CEO made similar claims too.

RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: A year after Charlie Kirk’s death, Sabo’s 'controversial' tribute finally goes on display

Taco Bell in 1994. Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images

Border run

Some have related the prices to a shift in company priorities. An article from Medium alleged that fast-food chains are more akin to tech companies now, scraping app data or being more like real estate developers. The latter is essentially the plot of the McDonald's-themed movie "The Founder."

Are prices still going up?

Yes, but they haven't gone over inflation. In March, Grocery Trade News noted restaurant prices had gone up 3.8%, while groceries had only risen 1.9%.

The current inflation estimate for 2026 is 3.4%.

Will we ever reach the prices of the purple and green Taco Bell era again? Outlook not so good.

Introducing News-ique: All the look of real news at a fraction of the value!



Those of a certain age will remember the era of infomercials and QVC.

For the younger set, “infomercials” were long-form commercials on cable TV, usually late at night. They ran for five, 10, even 30 minutes, incorporating elements of narrative — usually with laughable skill — to give the feeling that you were watching an actual show rather than a paid advertisement. They hawked products for the home and kitchen with a number to call to place your order.

Most of us are just going to click onto the next thing, unaware that the News-ique (TM) item left a Truth-ette (TM) trace in our minds.

QVC — “Quality, Value, Convenience” — was/is a TV channel that was nothing but one big infomercial, with on-camera hosts showing off products and bantering with each other and customers who called in. It was online shopping before there was an online.

Both marketplaces were famous for offering products that simulated much more valuable items. One such product was the pinnacle: a cubic zirconia stone that was (supposedly) visually indistinguishable from a diamond. It’s got everything: sparkle, allure, and the look of a real diamond at a fraction of the price!

Diamonique is forever

The best part is the name: Diamonique. Those branding this luxury obviously followed the old drag queen convention for choosing a stage moniker: Take a name denoting quality, seriousness, or at the very least referring to an actual person, then give it a little comic twist that lets you know immediately you're dealing with an imitation. Classic drag queen names of this type include:

Hedda Lettuce

Virginia Hamm

Anita Mann

... to name just a few.

As you can see, Diamonique fits right in.

So glittering was Diamonique that this imitation spawned imitators of its own, the best of which is Diamelle. When you can’t afford Diamonique, turn to Diamelle!

Authentic imitation news

What’s amusing in jewelry marketing doesn’t carry over in news and journalism — or what is alleged to be news and journalism. There’s a “news” marketing practice all over social media that gives you what appears to be a news story but is not.

I call this News-ique (TM). It has the look and feel of real news but at less than .01% of the value. It’s all over Twitter/X and other social media platforms.

The News-ique (TM) formula:

  1. Choose a topic guaranteed to rile people whether they’re left, right, or center. The closer the topic is to today’s “discourse” on social media, the better.
  2. Write a lede sentence or short paragraph making a claim that flatters the interests, views, but especially the biases of the reader. The text should confirm the reader’s prior assumptions.
  3. Include an image that looks very much like it is advertising a published news story, but do NOT include a link to that apparent story. It might or might not be published somewhere, but you can’t know from the original post — that’s the News-ique Difference (TM)!

Post nothing else. Do not follow up with a link. Watch outrage flow, and collect clicks and cash.

Know your News-ique

Here is an example of News-ique (TM), a post on X from an alleged news account, Europa.com. The post includes a picture of the subject against a background that looks “newsy” and “official.”

It says this:

Poland's Spokeswoman for Children, Monika Horna-Cieślak, used her official powers to take the children of a woman who was rude to her and place them in an orphanage.

Horna-Cieślak, 36, who is herself childless, had intervened in a public park in Warsaw before being told by the mother of an unruly child to mind her own business. She then leveraged her authority to have the children seized and placed into care.

Why is it News-ique (TM) and not news? Because there’s no link to a fuller source or documentation. There is no follow-up in the thread, only responses from X users.

I do not know if this item is real. I have not checked by doing my own search. It does not matter if this particular item is real or not; it is representative of countless posts every day that use the News-ique (TM) formula. My concern is not the content of the story, but the packaging, intent, and effect.

News-ique (TM) works because it presents plausible outrages. It’s believable that a head of a government ministry for children’s concerns would abuse her position and target a mother who criticized her. This type of thing happens. We know government officials sometimes abuse their authority and get away with it.

Filling in the gaps

But what if there is more to this story about a Polish official?

What I’m about to write is pure speculation used to demonstrate possibilities. I’m not giving you facts; I don’t even know if the original claim is true.

Let’s assume the core of the claim is true. What if the mother did not merely tell the minister to mind her own business? What if she smacked her with her purse? What if she made false and defamatory claims about her online? What if the minister observed that mother abusing her child?

The whole story changes if any of those factors are true. If the mother were abusing her child and the minister intervened, then the minister would have been doing the job she is in office for. She looks like a heroine instead of a villain.

Again, everything I just wrote was speculation. That’s the point: Without context, detail, and at least some provenance for the original claim, all we are doing is writing fiction while treating that fiction as fact.

The political and cultural content cuts in both directions. This example plays to the fears — often real and legitimate — of people with a right-wing bent and to libertarians and other freedom-minded people. But News-ique (TM) items just as often flatter the assumptions of left-leaning people.

RELATED: FACTION NEWS: The day the media taught me it’s always wrong to be right

H. Armstrong Roberts/Classicstock/Getty Images

New pollution

The News-ique (TM) approach contributes to political, cultural, and emotional pollution. It leaves an impression of truth in the minds of readers and “consumers.” And no, it doesn’t just work on “stupid people.” It works on most people, smart and stupid, left and right, hysterical or stoic. Items that flatter and confirm our prior assumptions are mentally sticky; they leave a trace you might call Truth-ette (TM). Few are immune.

At best, News-ique (TM) is irresponsible and lazy when the content is real and tells a true story. At worst, and I suspect in the majority of cases, it’s a deliberate choice to shade the truth and deprive readers of full context. Outrage gets clicks and cash; sober consideration does not.

Some might push back: “You can use Google/Siri/Whatever to check for yourself.” True. But most people won’t. Not even smart people will usually take the time unless they’re going to comment or use it in an essay or podcast. Most of us are just going to click onto the next thing. We won’t necessarily be aware that the News-ique (TM) item left a Truth-ette (TM) trace in our minds.

Sometimes, we’ll subconsciously incorporate that item into our view of what’s true about the world. This has happened to me and has probably happened in cases I’m unaware of. When I become aware that I’ve been foolish and failed to check veracity, I admit it in the same thread where I made the claim. Better not to react without having the facts first.

Unstoppable

There is nothing you or I can do to stop News-ique (TM). There is no way to change the social media incentive structure so this is not a profitable game. The only thing we can do is increase our skepticism and discernment.

“Then just stay off social media” is not a workable answer either. Social media is toxic and full of mind games. But it is also the medium through which we can learn many actually true things happening in the world that mainstream news simply will not tell us.

Social media is where we can find “citizen journalists” like Nick Shirley who document problems like fraudulent Somali day cares paid for by American taxpayer dollars. When mainstream media gets wind of stories like Shirley’s, it works hard to discredit them, as you see in this CBS News piece. It is also where we can hear directly from politicians and government officials without ABC/NBC/CBS/NPR/NYT leaving out important words to slant the story.

We are never going to have a world “back” where “official news” can be relied on. That world never existed anyway; we just didn’t have any way to fact-check the fact-checkers before.

If you see a “news story” on Twitter/Instagram/TikTok, make sure you know whether it’s news or News-ique (TM). Check whether context or links are given. If they are, cross-reference the claim against other sources. If they are not, you are reading News-ique (TM).

Diamonique can give you sparkle for the soirée at an affordable price. News-ique (TM) is a bad bargain at any price.