Holiday cheer or political fear? Cancel culture hits the dinner table



One of my big takeaways from the 2024 presidential election is that allowing politics to consume your life — and relationships — is deeply unhealthy. The most rabid progressives in politics have been advising Kamala Harris supporters to cut off loved ones who voted for Donald Trump at the time of year when families should be coming together, not splitting apart.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid put out a video the week before Thanksgiving explaining why some people might not feel “safe” around their MAGA relatives. She also had a Yale psychiatrist on her show who said LGBTQ+ people should feel free to avoid conservative family members.

The worst thing anyone can do this holiday season is cut off family or friends over politics. We need stronger connections.

“So if you are going through a situation where you have family members or you have close friends who you know have voted in ways that are against you, that are against your livelihood, then it’s completely fine to not be around those people and to tell them why,” Reid said.

After the 2020 election, I don’t recall any conservative articles encouraging Republicans to cut ties with liberal family members after Joe Biden won the White House. Yet, political divorce stories have become a genre of their own in progressive post-election commentary.

One Huffington Post contributor announced she was canceling Thanksgiving and Christmas because her husband and his family voted for Trump. Similar stories of people distancing themselves from relatives over politics have appeared in USA Today and Newsweek. This trend is troubling, but it aligns perfectly with the modern left’s approach to personal relationships.

The recent election revealed the anti-family ideology increasingly prevalent in progressive politics. For instance, the “Your Vote, Your Choice” political ad narrated by Julia Roberts in late October targeted married white women. The ad seemed designed to make wives feel a stronger allegiance to the “sisterhood” than to their husbands.

It’s bad enough that Democrats openly try to sow discord within families and divide husbands and wives. What makes their tactics even more egregious is the party’s unwillingness to define the word “woman” publicly. Democrats avoid doing so out of fear of offending a small group of men who believe they were born in the wrong body.

Anti-family and anti-human rhetoric isn’t just another Democratic Party talking point; it reflects a larger societal problem.

Nearly 30% of Americans now identify as religiously unaffiliated “nones” when asked about their personal faith. However, this doesn’t mean they lack deeply held beliefs. Every religion offers its followers a moral framework for distinguishing good from evil, a sense of community, and a set of deeply held convictions.

Although America has become less religious in recent decades, people remain passionate about their beliefs. In fact, those willing to sever ties with family members and destroy lifelong friendships over politics often display more zeal than the candidates running for office.

Consider this contrast: Joe Biden recently met with Donald Trump to congratulate him and discuss the transition process. The two men shook hands in front of a blazing fireplace as photographers captured the moment. Yet, some people won’t even share a meal with their parents because they voted for Trump.

Cutting off family over politics is shortsighted and extreme, especially when candidates often trade insults and baseless accusations they likely don’t even believe themselves.

Americans should spend more time with loved ones and less time online, where partisan politics dominate. Technology may give the illusion of greater connection, but in reality, American society is becoming increasingly fragmented.

People are delaying marriage and parenthood until later in life — or skipping them altogether. Families sit together at the dinner table or in restaurants, staring at screens like zombies. The politicization of companies, sports, and entertainment has turned the products we buy and the teams we root for into battlegrounds in the culture wars.

Meanwhile, our most important institutions have weakened, while partisan politics has grown unchecked, like an athlete on a human growth hormone. This imbalance is not a sign of a healthy society.

The worst thing anyone can do this holiday season is cut off family or friends over politics. We need stronger connections with those who care about our well-being. Political parties see us as voters, but our family and friends see us as real people and love us despite our flaws. No one should put politics over personal relationships.

This holiday season, my hope is that families will gather to eat, drink, and celebrate together, regardless of their political preferences. Karl Marx famously said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” but the progressives urging people to cut ties with family members who voted for Donald Trump are a reminder that politics has become a religion for far too many Democrats today.

When women accuse, men are always guilty — or are they?



An anonymous woman, identified as Jane Doe, accused Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, of sexual misconduct in 2017. The media’s treatment of her allegations highlights cultural confusion about sex and consent, reveals the gendered assumptions surrounding sexual violence, and underscores the challenges of disproving false accusations.

Progressives often champion the idea of sex as a “spectrum,” but when sexual assault enters the conversation, gender and sex suddenly become rigid. In cases of alleged sex crimes, society tends to associate predation with men, assuming women are innocent of sexual aggression.

Social sympathy often favors women over men, creating an uneven playing field where sexual predation is defined almost entirely by male behavior.

Despite the weakness of Doe’s testimony, left-leaning outlets framed the story to sympathize with Doe and cast Hegseth in a harsh light. NPR led by stating that Doe could not recall the evening but consistently said “no” to Hegseth’s advances. Time, CNN, ABC, and the Guardian highlighted a portion of Doe’s testimony in which she claimed Hegseth used his body to block her from leaving his hotel room.

This selective framing approaches advocacy on Doe’s behalf. But the full police investigation suggests that Doe, not Hegseth, initiated the sexual encounter.

‘We shouldn’t be doing this’

The incident occurred after an afterparty at the Republican Women’s Conference in Monterey, California, between Oct. 7 and 8, 2017. According to the report, the two had sex in the early morning of Oct. 8 after conversing at the hotel bar and arguing near the pool. Doe claimed she was sexually assaulted, said she could not remember most of the evening of Oct. 7, and expressed concern that “something may have been slipped into her drink.”

Hegseth, however, stated he had no intention of sleeping with Doe until she returned to his hotel room and remained there. He said that after initial confusion over her continued presence, “things progressed” between them, ultimately leading to sexual intercourse.

Aside from Doe’s testimony, there is no evidence that she was intoxicated or impaired before or after the encounter. She maintained a coherent text conversation with her husband throughout the night until approximately the time intercourse occurred. Her husband also stated that she showed no signs of intoxication when she returned to their room after the incident.

However, a hotel employee who confronted Doe and Hegseth at the pool due to a noise complaint said Doe appeared sober, while Hegseth seemed “heavily intoxicated.” Hegseth admitted he was “buzzed” and recalled being led away from the hotel bar by someone he could not identify. He described the person’s attire, which matched Doe’s dress. Additionally, Hegseth could not recall his encounter with Doe and hotel staff at the pool.

Hegseth stated that after he and Doe arrived at his hotel room, he became confused when she did not leave. Eventually, they engaged in sexual activity, during which Hegseth said he repeatedly asked Doe for confirmation that she was comfortable. Despite both acknowledging that they “shouldn’t be doing this,” they continued the encounter. Hegseth expressed concern that Doe regretted her actions shortly after the sexual encounter ended.

Can women sexually prey on men?

The Hegseth incident addresses a cultural taboo because the most reasonable interpretation of the facts suggests either a consensual sexual encounter or a deliberate attempt by a woman to engage in sexual conquest.

Matt Walsh’s famous and controversial documentary posed the simple question: “What is a woman?” Assuming society can answer this challenging riddle, a follow-up question should be considered: “What is a sexually predatory woman?” Few people can offer a clear answer to this provocative question. Traditional definitions of rape have long excluded male victims. Until 2012, the FBI defined rape as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” explicitly assuming only female victimhood.

Although the legal definition of rape now technically allows for male victims, society continues to frame predation based on male behavior. Understanding female sexual aggression remains nearly impossible under current cultural conditions because discussions of sex and gender are politicized and incoherent. Sex is fluid, and men and women are supposedly interchangeable — until an accusation of sexual abuse arises. In those cases, men are almost always seen as suspects, never victims.

The Hegseth allegations highlight this reality. A man who engaged in Doe’s behavior would be criticized as a sexual predator. If a sober man walked a heavily intoxicated woman to her hotel room, refused to leave, and ultimately had sex with her, he would open himself up to cultural and legal liability. Because of her sex, however, Doe was able to present herself as Hegseth’s victim, even when relevant testimony appears to undermine her narrative.

Call it the Hegseth dilemma. Despite his powerful position as a Fox News contributor, he settled a meritless claim of sexual assault for an undisclosed amount of money to fend off the possibility of a lawsuit that could damage his reputation.

Of course, Hegseth is hardly the most sympathetic victim and, as discussed in the National Review, these allegations are bad news for his confirmation odds, even if he did not assault Doe. However, most men are not Pete Hegseth. They have no deep pockets to avoid the liability of false allegations, and if their reputations are ruined by false rape allegations, they will likely lose social support, without recourse.

Addressing the problems of sexual assault presents big challenges. Whether a woman alleges rape or a man denies the accusation as false, provability poses a major hurdle in both situations. Social sympathy often favors women over men, creating an uneven playing field where sexual predation is defined almost entirely by male behavior.

Let’s hope the Hegseth allegations can spark honest conversations about the confusion surrounding gender relationships in an era where the sexes are assumed — incorrectly — to be interchangeable. Culturally, we can either assume women are the weaker sex and protect them accordingly, or women should accept accountability, a price of equality that feminist culture has historically fought to avoid.

Glenn Beck’s 2023 interview with Kash Patel is a MUST SEE before Patel assumes new role as FBI director



When Trump was first elected in 2016, he pledged to “drain the swamp” — that is, the Deep State that permeates the federal government and actively works to ensure certain agendas are pushed and others are squashed, its opponents are persecuted, and the nation heads in the direction it sees fit.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The Deep State is alive, but it isn’t necessarily well as an older and wiser Trump gears up for a second term.

His recent pick for FBI director — Kash Patel — is a surefire sign that he intends to root out the corruption this time around.

Almost a year ago, Glenn Beck sat down for an extended interview with Patel, and now that he is headed to the most powerful seat in one of the most brazenly corrupted branches of the DOJ, their conversation is well worth a revisit.


“I wanted to speak to somebody who has seen [the Deep State] firsthand, knows how it works,” said Glenn on December 13, 2023.

As the “principal deputy to the acting director of the national intelligence agency … under President Trump,” Patel “oversaw all of the operations of all 17 intelligence community agencies.” On top of that, “he also worked with the National Security Council, the secretary of defense, and the Department of Justice.”

All that to say Kash Patel was exactly the person Glenn was looking for to expose “what the Deep State is, how it works, and what its real goals are.”

Glenn’s first question for Patel was simple: “How bad is it?”

“It’s way worse than I thought it could ever be,” Patel, who documented his experience in a book, admitted. “It’s not just one guy; it’s not five … it’s like a thousand.”

The Deep State “just webs out into government, and it secretes in distinct places and kind of just hides there for a while. And then when they want it to activate, the media and others come in with their leadership and say this is what we need,” Patel explained. “These people who run these institutions — DOJ, FBI, DOD, what have you — they are part of this entrenched class in Washington that all respond to one thing: their self-advancement.”

“The only way they do that is if they glorify and protect the institution that's been corrupted,” he added.

To hear Patel’s firsthand experiences battling the Deep State (specific names included) and get a picture of what and whom he will be up against at the new director of the FBI, watch the episode above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

New Jersey council bans constitution and US flag during public comments



The township council at Edison township in New Jersey prohibited residents from using "props" when addressing them, including the constitution and the U.S. flag.

The Edison Municipal Township said the ban was meant to keep any props from becoming “an impediment to the orderly conduct.”

'It’s my constitutional right to do this. If you get sued, you will lose.'

Residents, outraged about the ban, showed up to the council meeting on Nov. 25 to voice their opposition to the law, leading to a five-hour meeting. Many argued the prohibition was a violation of free speech and their constitutional rights.

"To consider the American flag and the Constitution a prop when someone raises it is an insult to what the flag is, what the flag stands for and what this country is," said resident Maryann Hennessey. "For you to consider the use of the American flag a prop is disgusting."

Council President Nishith Patel banged his gavel while issuing a warning to another resident who dared to defy the order by waving an American flag.

"It’s my constitutional right to do this," said attorney Joel Bassoff. "If you get sued, you will lose. My suggestion to you is that you get a second opinion from competent counsel because you are wrong."

Patel told officers to remove Bassoff even as many in the audience applauded for the attorney.

"You are interfering with the decorum of this meeting by interfering with the right to speech of a member of the public. And it should stop now," he said.

Council members voted for a five-minute recess in order to allow the officer to remove Bassoff.

Fox News Digital said Patel did not respond to its request for a comment about the story.

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

Woman sentenced for killing and eating cat in Ohio



A woman who was arrested for eating a cat was sentenced on Monday after pleading guilty to a charge of animal cruelty.

27-year-old Allexis T. Ferrell of Canton was arrested in August at a housing complex after she "stomped" on a cat's head to kill it and then began eating it, according to WJW-TV.

Ferrell had been sentenced to three years’ probation in 2023 over a felony count of endangering children.

Police said they received several calls about Ferrell, and they later released body camera footage of the arrest. Officers said they saw blood on Ferrell's feet as well as fur on her lips.

"Somebody get rubber gloves, she's covered in blood," said an officer on the footage. Blood can be seen smeared on the driveway as neighbors watch on.

Video of the incident was circulated online as evidence to support President-elect Donald Trump's claims that Haitian immigrants were eating cats in Springfield, Ohio.

The Associated Press reported that Ferrell is not an immigrant, not Haitian, and was born in Ohio.

Ferrell was initially charged with disorderly conduct and cruelty to animals. Court filings said a judge sentenced her to 12 months in prison for the charge of animal cruelty.

The court also ordered that “the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense."

Ferrell had been sentenced to three years’ probation in 2023 over a felony count of endangering children. Because of the new conviction, she will serve 18 more months in prison for a total of 30 months.

She also pled guilty to theft and misuse of credit cards in 2019.

The police body camera footage can be viewed on the WKYC channel on YouTube.

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

Some states STILL COUNT late mail-in ballots after Election Day



The Pennsylvania Senate race was finally called when Democrat Bob Casey conceded that the Democrats were attempting to count ballots that had no date or the wrong date. Luckily, the Supreme Court sided with the RNC.

But how do we prevent voting in a federal election from getting to this point in the future?

“What we need is a voter’s election integrity bill of rights, because these crazy laws are really infringing on the voting rights of people who go to the polls, do it right,” Cleta Mitchell, senior legal fellow for the Conservative Partnership Institute, tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.”

“There are a number of principles that we’re sort of coalescing around that need to be both in federal law and in state law,” she continues. “Only citizens vote, voter ID for every kind of voting, make sure that all ballots are received by the time the polls close on Election Day, make sure that there’s transparency and accountability.”


“This situation needs to be corrected. It’s way past time to do that,” she adds.

Illinois is one state that has pushed the boundaries regarding election integrity, allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to fourteen days after the election.

“Do you think that this is something where the Supreme Court, or the courts, might not ultimately decide in the right direction? It just seems so egregious, but people now, they’re kind of used to it, in our corrupt system, allowing these mail-ins to come in after the fact,” Peterson comments.

“Judicial Watch has filed suit in both Illinois and also Mississippi, and the Fifth Circuit ruled that receiving ballots after the time the polls close on Election Day violates the federal statute,” Mitchell responds.

“I think that one of the things that we need to do is say that there’s a beginning and an end when we as a country vote, pretty much at the same time,” she continues. “We might have to make some accommodations for people to vote in person early if they’re going to be out of state.”

“I think we need to get rid of this universal vote by mail, this universal sending of ballots to people whether they requested them or not,” she adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Police shoot and kill shirtless man who allegedly threatened residents of assisted living center with a chainsaw



A man who allegedly threatened elderly people with a chainsaw was shot and killed by police on Sunday morning.

St. Charles police said they were called to an assisted living center in St. Charles, Illinois, at about 8:45 a.m. in response to a shirtless man using a chainsaw to try to cut down a tree.

'An unauthorized person briefly entered our community and was quickly stopped by responding officers.'

Once they arrived, however, they were informed that the man had allegedly gone into the lobby of the center and was "confronting residents with the chainsaw."

Police said they tried to de-escalate the situation but that the man kept threatening residents and also threatened police officers. They tried to use a Taser on him to no avail, and then one officer shot him.

"An officer was then forced to fire his service weapon, striking the suspect," read a statement from police.

Police said he was transported to Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital where he was later pronounced dead.

Some of the residents were treated at the scene for minor injuries in addition to some police being treated.

A statement from the River Glen of St. Charles assisted living center thanked police and said the center was cooperating with the investigation.

"This morning, an unauthorized person briefly entered our community and was quickly stopped by responding officers. We are deeply grateful for the swift action of our team and law enforcement," the statement read.

St. Charles is a suburb of Chicago of about 33,000 people.

Video from the center can be viewed on a WBBM-TV news report on YouTube about the incident.

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

Denver mayor vows to blockade mass deportations. Will he go to jail?



The answer to that question is yes, Mike Johnston will likely go to jail if he opposes the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans.

But it looks as if Johnston is okay with that.

In a recent article, Blaze Media national correspondent Julio Rosas outlined Johnston’s plans to resist mass deportations, even if it means he winds up behind bars.

“I’m not afraid of that,” he said when asked about potential incarceration.

Now, Rosas joins Jill Savage on “Blaze News Tonight” to shed light on how far-left Democrats plan to buck the will of the people when it comes to illegal immigration.


Rosas says that Democrats may act shocked and horrified about mass deportations, but they should know that this is what happens when an administration opens the borders for years, creating a border crisis.

From financial strain to human trafficking and immigrant gangs, mass deportations are the only logical solution, but still, Democrats plan to protect those who broke the law to be here at the expense of their own citizens.

It’s this very mentality that caused deep blue cities to shift toward Trump during the election.

And that shift from blue to red might increase when they see their leaders continue down the same path of making Americans second-class citizens behind illegal immigrants.

“If they want to continue doing this, that's fine, but they're going to continue to do it at their own peril in the next upcoming elections,” says Rosas.

However, a different kind of peril awaits them in the meantime, and his name is Tom Homan.

“[Homan] just announced states refusing to follow the federal mass deportation plan could lose federal funding. Do you think that that's going to happen? Do you think these states are going to go toe-to-toe and fight the feds on this?” Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson asks.

The answer to that is possibly. Johnston did threaten to deploy local law enforcement to the county line to stop the feds from carrying out mass deportations in the Denver area.

If he proves good on these words, he’s going to come face to face with Homan, who Rosas says is “a very serious individual.”

“As someone who knows Tom, he's been chomping at the bit for this for many years now,” he tells Jill and Peterson. “If Democrat leaders and cities want to actually take that extra step and obstruct them … from doing [mass deportations], you're doing it to someone who's Tom Homan, and that's someone that I would take very, very seriously.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Theo Von explains why he is no longer a Bernie-loving Democrat: 'There's certainly an attack on white males'



Comedian and podcaster Theo Von explained why he went from identifying as a Democrat and supporting a socialist senator to being sympathetic to President-elect Donald Trump.

Von was speaking to Prof. Scott Galloway on the comedian's podcast when he made the comments about his place in the political environment. The 44-year-old said he had been a supporter of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

'I definitely see it as a lot of people feel embarrassed to be white, you know, and that's a shame because you didn't choose to be white.'

"You look at [Joe] Rogan used to be a Democrat. He was a leftist. I'm a Bernie fan. It's like these people f***in' alienated my heroes in the Democratic Party. It's gotten, like, very bizarre," said Von.

"I mean the political part of it is very bizarre to me," he added. "But there is a lot about what you're saying. A man wants to feel like it's okay to be a man, and sometimes you leave the house like: 'Is it okay to be a man? Do I have to check my d*** at the door of this restaurant or whatever?' It feels like that sometimes, you know, and it's not how somebody should feel. I think it's great that we're talking about this."

Trump appeared on Von's show just ahead of the election, and many believe the campaign's focus on alternative media outlets helped lead to his stunning victory.

Elsewhere in the podcast, Von also talked about the shaming of white males in society.

"There's certainly an attack on white males, it feels like. And then if you're white, ... you can't be like, 'Hey, can we do a white help group?' Because suddenly you're racist. There's definitely this shaming of being in white skin," Von said.

"We're constantly doing that, reliving the past or refocusing on the past and using it as a scope to aim at the present, you know, and it's not very fair," he added. "I definitely see it as a lot of people feel embarrassed to be white, you know, and that's a shame because you didn't choose to be white. And a lot of white people didn't have s***, dude. You know what I'm saying?"

The entirety of the interview with Galloway can be viewed on Von's page on YouTube.

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

Trump-supporting sheriffs pledge to assist with mass deportations



In contrast to Democratic officials from around the country who have promised to protect illegal aliens, a couple sheriffs have come forward and offered to assist with mass deportations after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.

For Richard Jones, the sheriff of Butler County, Ohio, such assistance is nothing new. In fact, Jones, a 71-year-old Republican who was just elected to a sixth term, had partnered with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump.

He paused that partnership during the Biden administration but says, "Now, we're back."

'Sheriffs ..., unlike police chiefs, typically have no boss beside voters.'

"We're preparing cells and space as we speak," Jones told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "Day after the election, we started preparing."

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (R) of Frederick County, Maryland, expressed similar sentiments to the Wall Street Journal. "I’m willing to support the president 100%," Jenkins, 68, said, referring to Trump. "I want to do more, within the law."

Jenkins said he's motivated to help Trump after the disastrous immigration-related policies implemented since Biden became president.

"You have people with felony assault charges they’re not putting in custody," he said.

"Listen, they’re here illegally," Jenkins continued. "They shouldn’t be here. You know, I look as an American citizen that we can’t sustain this. It’s not tenable for us to continue to allow people to come into this country by the hundreds of thousands or millions."

Jones said he has reserved between 250 and 300 beds — about one-third of the bed space at Butler County Jail — for illegal aliens. The rest of the facility, he said, will be for "local" offenders. "We take care of our local prisoners first," he told the Cincinnati Enquirer.

"I get asked, 'Well, people that are here [legally] in the United States, they drunk-drive, they kill people, they rape people. What are you gonna say about that?' And I say, I got enough to deal with my homegrown criminals. I don't need other criminals from other countries to deal with," Jones explained.

Should the bed space allotted for illegal aliens prove inadequate, Jones said he'll begin transferring the illegal alien inmates to other facilities.

Meanwhile, a soft stance on illegal immigration may have cost at least one Democratic sheriff her job. Sheriff Kristin Graziano — who, according to Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), made Charleston County, South Carolina, a sanctuary county and who has allowed "criminal illegal immigrants to roam free" — lost her re-election bid last month to Republican Carl Ritchie.

For its part, the Wall Street Journal seemed to lament the resurgence of Trump-supporting sheriffs. The outlet called Trump's deportation plans "unclear" and likely not "practical."

Moreover, the outlet disparaged American citizens in an attempt to disprove Trump's assertions about illegal aliens. "[Trump] has claimed these newer arrivals commit crime at high levels, take jobs and drive up housing costs," the outlet reported. "Available data show immigrants commit crime at lower levels than U.S. citizens, and analysts say they fill low-paying jobs many Americans eschew."

The outlet also called voter fraud committed by noncitizens "exceedingly rare."

The Journal even seemed to have misgivings about the "political" nature of the sheriff office, handwringing that as elected officials, sheriffs answer only to the people in their community and not another government official. "Sheriffs ..., unlike police chiefs, typically have no boss beside voters," it said.

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