Netflix’s East Of Eden Has No Knowledge Of Good And Evil

The problem with Kazan's East of Eden is that it tries to understand evil without first understanding goodness.

East Of Eden Villain Is A Netflix Hero Because She Has No Sexual Mores

Netflix’s upcoming adaptation of 'East of Eden' trades literary truth for cheap moral ambiguity.

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



We’ve reached peak “View,” and we still have three months to go in the year.

Even a Rosie O’Donnell reunion couldn’t top the insanity on a single “View” episode this week. Wednesday’s installment had co-host Sara Haines wishing that Lindsay Clancy’s husband had honored the whole “in sickness and in health” line from their wedding vows.

He won’t be the first person daffy enough to write checks for Gaza dwellers. The terror group that runs Gaza is notorious for taking the money and running, Woody Allen style.

That’s a real thing.

The same episode saw co-host Sunny Hostin bragging that she had been a holdout juror in the 1991 trial of Daniel Rakowitz, the “Butcher of Tompkins Square Park.” Rakowitz — who murdered and dismembered his roommate — was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Hostin now says she recognized that Rakowitz was psychotic and persuaded the other jurors “one by one” to come around to her view. Yes, she’s proud of that legacy. The only problem is that contemporaneous reporting — including Hostin’s own comments at the time — makes her heroic 35-year-old recollection considerably messier.

“The View” capped off the episode with co-host Joy Behar bemoaning that we won’t have a woman president anytime soon.

That’s a 10 out of 10 even on the Russian judge’s scorecard of perfect “View” episodes. No notes ...

Box-office 'bomb' for Hezbollah

The man who gave us “What Is a Woman?” and “Am I Racist?” is back with another must-see documentary. Director Justin Folk took a break from frequent collaborator Matt Walsh to shoot “Paging Hezbollah,” the kind of documentary no Hollywood studio would touch.

Folk’s film breaks down the “Trojan Horse”-like campaign to give bomb-laden tech to Hezbollah leaders, one of the most devious strategies ever assembled.

Standing by for Javier Bardem and Macklemore to boycott the film in 3 ... 2 ...

'Saw' turns it up to 11

Just as with horror villains, no horror franchise is ever dead-dead.

Even that recent horrific “Exorcist” reboot didn’t stop the franchise from rebooting itself anew. Now it’s “Saw’s” turn.

To be fair, the first “Saw” film from 2004 was ingenious and creepy, but subsequent editions defined the “torture porn” era. No thanks.

Nostalgia still reigns supreme, so a new “Saw” film is in the offing. The only upside? Horror veterans James Wan (“The Conjuring,” “Insidious”) and original “Saw” scribe Leigh Whannell are back to produce the 11th film in the saga.

Sick of Jigsaw and his gruesome game nights? A better alternative might be a couple of well-made “Saw” spoofs that imagine sharing an office and an apartment with the series' sinister "star" Billy the Puppet.

RELATED: Chuck Norris died. The Emmys were still too scared to say his name.

NBC/CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images

Macklemore's Palestine-apalooza

Does he even care where the money will go?

Far-left rapper Macklemore is making the most of his career revival. He previously made a stink by lecturing fans as the opening act for apolitical superstar Ed Sheeran. Now riding that publicity wave, he’s going on his own tour.

The catch? All ticket sales will go to the Palestinians. Oh, really.

He won’t be the first person daffy enough to write checks for Gaza dwellers. The terror group that runs Gaza is notorious for taking the money and running, Woody Allen style. Even if he means well, celebrities have a lousy track record of making sure donating funds go where they should.

Just ask the folks behind Fire Aid.

“It’s 2026. Being apolitical during a genocide doesn’t work anymore,” he said in a statement tied to a tour that will start in Dublin, Ireland. That country is notorious of late for its unbridled anti-Semitism.

We’ll leave it at that.

Perhaps he’ll spend his down time reading what the word “genocide” actually means ...

Cruise fears box-office burial

The Last Movie Star could be in trouble.

Tom Cruise’s October 2 release, “Digger,” had all the Oscar buzz heading into the fall ... until people actually saw it. The “first reactions” pieces tied to the satire were all over the map, with plenty of people calling it a dud.

Remember, “first reaction” stories almost always skew positive, sometimes cartoonishly so. So this is a bad sign. Now the film’s box-office hopes are similarly shrinking.

Cruise clearly hopes this outlandish role — he plays an oil tycoon blamed for causing an eco-disaster — would snag him that long-coveted Oscar.

If the word of mouth gets any worse, he may have to settle for a Razzie.

Europe would like you to stop ogling female athletes



Here in the U.K., we recently learned that security cameras are racist. But the seething hatred lurking behind seemingly neutral video technology does not end there. It turns out that even the cameras capturing our sporting events harbor distinctly retrograde attitudes. They're more sexist than Austin Powers, baby!

Ahead of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, Olympic Broadcasting Services chief Yiannis Exarchos warned camera operators against the "unconscious bias" that leads broadcasters to film female athletes differently from men. “Women athletes are not there because they are more attractive or sexy or whatever,” he said. “They are there because they are elite athletes.”

The cameras aren’t the problem here. The real issue is our refusal to face up to what actually keeps people glued to their screens.

If you think this feminized moral panic won’t reach American shores, think again.

'Raising the Bar'

The European Broadcasting Union and European Athletics recently released "Raising the Bar" — a 23-page guide proposing to clamp down on camera angles they claim sexualize female athletes in international sports.

Through a series of cartoon stills that look more like swimming pool warnings for toddlers, the booklet instructs camera operators to avoid low-angle cameras positioned around the starting blocks, tight zooms, lingering shots, and unnecessary slow-motion replays.

To understand why this matters to someone on a barstool in Ohio, it all comes down to international broadcasting rights. When American networks like NBC air the Olympics, they simply buy a master feed from bodies like OBS. Because OBS has adopted these sanitized framing rules, American viewers get whatever neutered footage passes the international purity test, whether they like it or not.

Is 'sexy' sexist?

No doubt the regulations were inspired, at least in part, by the shabby treatment of German sprinter Alica Schmidt, whose athletic achievements have consistently been overshadowed by the unwelcome label of "World's Sexiest Athlete," The indignities have piled up: runway modeling appearances, endorsement deals, and the onerous burden of maintaining a meticulously curated feed of casually glamorous photos for her 5.2 million Instagram followers.

Surely American fans would never place such crass emphasis on physical appearance over athletic accomplishment, you may think.

Think again.

In the states, even the sensibly aerodynamic uniform of an elite gymnast can prompt leers. Consider the case of LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne. Dunne was an accomplished college gymnast — an All-American whose LSU team won the 2024 national championship — but it was her extraordinary social media following that turned her into one of the biggest stars, and biggest earners, in college sports.

Once the NCAA began allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness in 2021, Dunne discovered that millions of followers had considerable market value. She signed major endorsement deals, reportedly earned millions during her college years, and could command six figures for a single sponsored social media post.

Naturally, this success also prompted solemn concern that people were paying altogether too much attention to what Dunne looked like. Sports media fretted about the sexualization of female athletes while running photographs of the photogenic gymnast whose ability to attract millions of eyeballs was the very reason advertisers were writing her checks.

Dunne herself seemed rather less conflicted. “I love doing social media and I enjoy being in the spotlight,” she has said.

RELATED: Why liberals make life so ugly

flyparade/Getty Images

Chicks with clicks

There is something peculiar about this hand-wringing. Media outlets can simultaneously object to the attention paid to a beautiful female athlete and discover that photographs of that same beautiful female athlete are exceptionally useful for attracting readers.

I hate to break it to the puritans, but very few people watch women's sports — especially men — purely for athletic ability. Take away the visual appeal, and viewership will collapse. You might as well put athletes in a burqa if the explicit goal is zero titillation.

Sponsors follow ratings. Ratings follow eyes. Eyes follow what millions of years of human evolution programmed us to notice. Talent is rare — but elite talent with sex appeal is a unicorn. Why not celebrate it?

Deny that fundamental reality, and watch the entire commercial edifice shrivel up and die. Like it or not, the audience for most major spectator sports still skews male, and denying visual reality doesn’t elevate women’s sports — it robs them of the paying audience that funds player contracts. Sports are an attention economy, not an affirmative action program.

'Wrong' attention

The cameras aren’t the problem here. The real issue is our refusal to face up to what actually keeps people glued to their screens. The same cultural sickness that turns every campus protest into a "Handmaid’s Tale" cosplay has infected women’s sports. When militant feminists campaigned to ban Formula 1 grid girls, they claimed to defend women’s liberty — but in reality, it eliminated well-paid jobs that many women valued, just to satisfy an ideological purity test.

Meanwhile, OnlyFans exploded, and Instagram fitness influencers monetized every angle. Radical feminism attacks traditional modesty, yet continues to frame women as eternal victims of "the male gaze." The result is a bizarre cognitive dissonance: We celebrate sexualized women when it fits an empowerment narrative, but condemn men for reacting in predictable ways.

This isn’t about respect. It’s about control. If you control the image, you control the narrative. Beautiful, sculpted people who once drew eyes to screens are now treated as a problem to be solved. When the commentariat lobby for restricted camera guidelines, it feels less like athletic advocacy and more like institutional sour grapes. It makes you think: How many of the complainants cheering this on are the ones who, let’s face it, were never going to draw that particular gaze anyway?

Elsewhere, the internet’s seedier corners carry on as usual, because selective modesty is the latest grift. Ideologues demand sports coverage that pretends human attraction doesn’t exist, while the wider culture hyper-sexualizes everything else. Under this shibboleth, "equity" means no one is allowed to stand out — or receive the "wrong" kind of attention.

Traditional culture didn’t need such infantilizing guidance to appreciate physical strength and form without descending into vulgarity. Having removed those guardrails in the name of liberation, we now rely on micromanaged camera angles to police the very instincts their culture unleashed.

Broadcasters are killing off the one honest reason millions tune in to watch women’s sports — and when ratings inevitably collapse, broadcast revenues plummet, and the usual equal-pay complaints resurface, feminists will scratch their heads and wonder why women’s sports struggle for relevance.

Enjoy your socially engineered utopia in empty stadiums.

The FCC finally cuts local TV loose



Washington has forced local television stations to compete in a 21st-century media market under rules written for the 20th century.

Americans pay the price whenever outdated regulations make it harder for local broadcasters to invest in better news coverage, stronger emergency alerts, and new technology.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

The Federal Communications Commission has now taken an important step toward fixing that mismatch by replacing a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach with a more flexible, fact-based review process.

The principle is simple: Regulation should respond to today’s marketplace, not yesterday’s assumptions.

Local television still matters. Americans rely on hometown stations for storm warnings, election coverage, school closings, and stories that national outlets rarely cover. Yet, like local newspapers before them, many stations face serious financial pressure.

More than half of U.S. television stations operate at a loss even as they continue providing essential public service.

To survive, broadcasters need investment. They want to upgrade transmission systems, strengthen emergency alerts, expand local journalism, and deploy next-generation broadcast technology.

But investment requires scale, and investors are understandably reluctant to fund companies that federal policy artificially prevents from reaching more than 39% of American households.

That ownership cap was created for a different era, when Americans watched one of three television networks and broadcasters dominated the video marketplace.

The market changed. Washington’s rules did not.

Americans now consume news and entertainment on smartphones, tablets, laptops, streaming services, social media, and podcasts. Broadcasters compete with Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, cable networks, and digital platforms capable of reaching essentially every American.

Local broadcasters, however, remain constrained by a federal ownership cap designed before the internet transformed the media business.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has warned that America should not repeat the mistakes made with local newspapers.

That warning deserves attention.

Washington watched thousands of local newspapers disappear while old business models collapsed and investment arrived too late. Communities never stopped needing local journalism. The economics simply stopped supporting it.

Local television should not be next.

Critics of the FCC’s order warn that loosening ownership restrictions could weaken localism. That is a legitimate concern, but it should be tested against evidence rather than treated as an argument for preserving the status quo indefinitely.

The politics of the moment also matter. Because the reform comes from a Republican FCC, opponents can dismiss it as simple deregulation. Yet media-ownership debates have shifted with partisan control before, and Democrats have supported modernization efforts of their own when they held power.

RELATED: FCC slaps ban on Chinese robots — revealing US plans for unmanned warfighting

John Keeble/Getty Images

Localism should remain the objective. The 39% ownership cap is only one regulatory tool.

There is little evidence that fixing the national ownership limit at 39% — rather than 50%, 75%, or some other figure — produces more local news, stronger emergency coverage, or better community service.

Good public policy should ask whether a regulation produces measurable benefits, not whether it has survived for decades.

If policymakers want stronger local journalism, they should focus on the conditions that make it possible: investment, innovation, modern technology, and financially sustainable business models.

Emergency communications make the point especially clear.

During hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other disasters, local broadcasters provide information that can save lives. Those capabilities depend on modern infrastructure, skilled journalists, reliable transmission systems, and continuing investment — not on an arbitrary national ownership ceiling.

The FCC’s decision does not guarantee that every station will thrive. Nothing can.

But it gives local broadcasters something they have lacked for too long: greater freedom to attract investment, modernize operations, strengthen emergency communications, and build sustainable local-news organizations.

Government should not freeze one industry in time while every competitor is free to innovate.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

Local communities are best served when their broadcasters have the freedom to grow, compete, and invest in the journalism Americans still depend on.

America is winning the air war and losing the information war



As the shooting war with Iran enters its sixth month, the United States continues to smash Iran’s military — and lose the information war in Iran, at home, and around the world.

American forces can strike targets across Iran and hit Tehran’s regional allies, especially the Houthis in Yemen. By every conventional military measure, Iran is taking severe losses. Yet a growing domestic and international audience believes Tehran is fighting the United States to a standstill.

The Iranian officials would earn an A in my information-warfare seminar. Too many American officials would earn an F

It is not. But Iran is winning the argument over what the war means.

Too many senior American officials still treat television — whether broadcast or streamed — as a record of an event rather than a battlefield in its own right. The War Department approaches global visual media as if it were still 1991 and Desert Storm. That must change.

U.S. military planners still tend to think in Clausewitzian terms: War is politics conducted through the controlled application of violence. That formulation reflected the technology of the early 19th century. It does not account for an information age in which images cross the globe in milliseconds and political effects can precede, outweigh, or even replace battlefield effects.

I call this form of conflict SOFTWAR: the hostile use of global visual media to shape another society’s will by changing its view of reality. Three colleagues and I have taught this form of warfare to generations of students at U.S. war, staff, and intelligence colleges since the early 1990s. Too few American institutions adapted.

Iran did. Its military and intelligence apparatus has embraced the concept since at least 2003 and even adopted the American-coined term in its own publications and influence operations.

That helps explain why the United States has spent billions of dollars over five months while Iranian drone and missile attacks — and Tehran’s televised defiance — continue. Washington is using Cold War systems and industrial-age doctrine against an asymmetric enemy organized for the infosphere.

Iran’s theocratic dictatorship is fighting a four-dimensional guerrilla war across land, sea, air, and information. Its military losses have limited its ability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces. Its remaining attacks are therefore chosen less for battlefield effect than for global media impact.

Oil tankers and cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a desalination plant and power station in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil hub, a liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar, a U.S. communications center in Jordan, and American naval facilities in Bahrain all produce frightening images and headlines.

RELATED: The only Iran plan that doesn’t end with a 20-year hangover

Marcin Golba/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Iran times its scattered counterattacks for its own early-morning hours so the images arrive during the American prime-time news cycle. The objective is not merely to damage a target. It is to shape the story told about the war here, there, and everywhere.

The United States helps Tehran by concentrating almost exclusively on visible military targets while leaving the regime’s domestic television system intact. Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting continues to push the mullahs’ account across dozens of television channels and through its official news operation.

Washington destroys weapons and commanders but fails to contest the information environment that gives those losses political meaning. It has not destroyed the transmitters and replaced the regime’s message with one aimed directly at the Iranian people.

Those people are the regime’s real engine: a population that has endured repression and the reported killing of tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators. Outside the relatively small number of Iranians with access to Starlink, the United States has no coherent way to speak to them at scale.

America does not lack the technology. The military weakened its own capacity. In 2024, it retired the EC-130J aircraft of the 193rd Special Operations Wing, the only U.S. airborne radio and television broadcast platform. The aircraft were judged too vulnerable for modern combat, but no announced drone replacement has taken over the mission.

The result is overwhelming kinetic power without a direct means of reaching the Iranian public. It is the doctrine of a mechanic who responds to an engine-warning light by cutting the wire to the bulb. The warning disappears. The engine keeps failing.

Meanwhile, Iranian propagandists study the American audience, especially younger people hostile to the Trump administration, and target them with AI-generated Lego-character videos. The goal is to unite disparate factions, erode domestic support for the war, and influence the midterm elections.

America needs a genuinely four-dimensional military capable of operating on land, at sea, in the air, and throughout the infosphere. Information warfare should organize and direct the campaign, with kinetic operations supporting strategic influence objectives — not the other way around. Iran already understands the hierarchy.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Military education needs a strategic makeover

Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu/Getty Images

Its officials also understand presentation.

When Iranian military figures such as Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari or Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman Abolfazl Shekarchi address the public, they are usually seated behind a desk with the Iranian flag visible. Their uniforms are immaculate, their beards trimmed, and their faces dramatically lit. Most important, they look through the camera lens directly at the audience. This is television 101.

Viewers who speak no Farsi still receive the intended message: discipline, seriousness, and defiance.

American military spokesmen too often squander the same opportunity. They ignore, disdain, or have never learned the skills needed to communicate effectively on television.

General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is informed and capable. But at his Pentagon press conferences, his televised manner resembles a squadron commander consulting his notes while briefing the weather to the first three rows.

He should address the millions watching beyond the room. Put the camera a few feet away, frame him from mid-bicep to just above the head, and have him look through the lens to establish direct eye contact with the intended audience. Reporters can sit to either side. The difference would be immediate.

Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, makes a similar mistake. He often appears in green camouflage designed to defeat electro-optical observation — including television — rather than the Navy service uniform designed to convey authority, experience, and command. He also stands too far from the camera for viewers to read his face.

His folksy Ozzie Nelson manner may work before Congress or the Navy League. It does not put an enemy on his heels.

RELATED: The future of warfare is not what you think

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth should know better. The former Fox News host needs a tighter camera shot and a visual style designed for wartime communication rather than his old television demographic.

His current presentation is crowded with distractions: a tight European-cut suit, patterned tie, clashing flag pocket square, and hair product that makes his scalp glisten under studio lights. His deep-set eyes require careful lighting. Without it, viewers may read strain or evasiveness where none exists.

Alfred Hitchcock understood the rule: Dress the leading man simply and light him properly so the audience watches the man rather than the costume. Cary Grant in “North by Northwest” remains the model.

The Iranian officials would earn an A in my information-warfare seminar. Too many American officials would earn an F — and three hours of detention.

That needs to change right now.

The United States is not losing the military contest with Iran. It is losing the contest over what the world believes the military contest means.

A nation can destroy every designated target and still lose the war if its enemy controls the images, timing, and story. Information warfare is not an elective. It is the core course.

America, so far, is failing.

Jimmy Kimmel has a plan to get Stephen Colbert back on late-night TV



Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel said there are a lot of people who are interested in what he and his colleagues have to say.

Kimmel boasted off the back of his best month of ratings ever, directly after his pal Stephen Colbert left the CBS airwaves.

'It's silly how people go wild about a podcast that's No. 5, and the numbers still don't even compare to a television show.'

Couch surfing

Colbert took over "The Late Show" in 2015 from host David Letterman, eventually nose-diving into a $40 million annual loss for his network before leaving in May.

When asked if Colbert's viewership had made its way over to his show, Kimmel told Variety, "I've always thought of our show as an orphanage."

It was later in the same interview that Kimmel explained he had a plan to get Colbert back behind the desk on his own network, ABC/Disney, and host for at least some period of time on his show.

For his summer break, which just started, Kimmel revealed he had asked Colbert if he would do him the honor of guest hosting "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

However, Colbert reportedly declined on the grounds that it was too soon.

"Of course, I asked him, and I think it feels premature," Kimmel told the outlet. "But I told him, 'Anytime you want to host, it doesn't matter if it's the summer, I'll gladly step aside.'"

RELATED: EMMY-BARRASSMENT: TV king Taylor Sheridan snubbed, while canceled Colbert cleans up

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Host with the most

The allegation that Colbert fans changed the dial over to ABC in June comes after Kimmel averaged 3.15 million viewers, his best monthly audience ever in the show's 23 years.

Kimmel jabbed at CBS, thanking them "for their wisdom," while adding, "We were doing pretty well before that, but that really helped."

The viewership marks a 17% increase from May with a doubling of viewers in the 18-49 market.

The 58-year-old Kimmel took the chance to dump on the podcast market during the recent interview, saying his numbers blow them away.

"It's silly how people go wild about a podcast that's No. 5, and the numbers still don't even compare to a television show," Kimmel bragged.

"There's still a lot of people watching late-night television, and I include the other shows in that," he said. "And there are still a lot of people looking at our shows on YouTube the next day, and there's a lot of people who are interested in what we have to say. They may ... not necessarily be watching it on their TV, but it seems like a little bit of people are coming back to their old friend television."

RELATED: Tan-splaining Colbert celebrates 'scandal-free' Obama at new presidential center opening

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

Summer slots

Kimmel's summer break is set to feature a revolving door of some of Hollywood's most memorable cogs like Ike Barinholtz, Anthony Anderson, and Rosie O'Donnell.

Other hosts include actor Colman Domingo and musician Jelly Roll.

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

Netflix’s Little House On The Prairie Is A Betrayal

Netflix's new Little House on the Prairie gracelessly trashes the story of self-reliance that made its source material beloved.

House Of The Dragon Swung For The Patriarchy And Ruined Its Female Leads Instead

The showrunners have changed a story in which two women are the paramount political actors to one where they are impotent moral compasses.

In Memory Of Mister Rogers’ Handyman And Music Shop Owner Joe Negri

He played a handyman on TV, but Joe Negri's real work, shaping generations of jazz musicians in Pittsburgh, needed no make believe.