Substacks
The Greatest (Ever?) Show on Turf Oliver Wiseman
This year’s Super Bowl has it all. On the field tomorrow night, two dominant teams face off in a heavyweight clash for the ages, with the greatest quarterback of his generation aiming for a third title in five years. Then, of course, there’s all the off-the-field excitement. Las Vegas! Usher! Tay. Lor. Swift.
No wonder Sunday night’s battle between the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs is expected to be the most-watched Super Bowl in history—perhaps even the biggest event in television history.
The monoculture is back, baby! And folks, we’re all in. Now is not the time for cool detachment. Bookish millennials, shelve those jokes about “sportsball.” There’s plenty of room at the nerd table in the corner over there. The jocks are in charge again.
But if this year’s Super Bowl is really going to bring us all together, we all have to do our homework. The Swifties need to brush up on the Chiefs’ playbook. The NFL fanatics need to stop complaining about the Swifties. Everyone needs to limber up and be ready to pop and lock their way through Usher’s halftime show like it’s 2008. The introverts (who’ve had a great run since 2020, when these teams last met in a Super Bowl) need to get themselves to a watch party—where the hosts need to make sure the fridge is stocked with a beer for all political persuasions.
So we’ve collected advice from some people we trust and compiled The Free Press Guide to Super Bowl Sunday.
We should probably start with the actual game. To clue us in to the big storyline on the field, we reached out to Tyler Dunne, who writes the pro football Substack Go Long. Here’s Tyler on Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes’ quest for greatness:
Patrick Mahomes has entered rarefied air. At 28, the Kansas City Chiefs quarterback will now be judged by one number only: Super Bowl rings.
Mahomes grasps this reality more than anyone. One of his best friends, Coleman Patterson, told me that this is easily the most motivated he’s ever seen Mahomes. Over the years, Patterson has watched Mahomes lock in to dominate everything from axe-throwing competitions at Nashville bachelor parties to rounds of golf—not to mention his two previous Super Bowl wins. And all the QB cares about now is hoisting as many Lombardi Trophies as he possibly can.
Mahomes picked up his second trophy last year. A win tomorrow would put him at three—one behind Joe Montana and four behind Tom Brady, with plenty of time to catch up to the GOATs.
His ability to rise to the moment when the pressure is on transcends pro football, and that’s bad news for a leaky San Francisco 49ers defense. This is not the 2019 unit that reached the Super Bowl, no. After Mahomes vanquished the Baltimore Ravens—the first defense in NFL history to finish No. 1 in points allowed, sacks, and turnovers—this 49ers crew will resemble fresh meat for a QB fully aware that his legacy is on the line. This is also the best defense Mahomes has ever had in KC. . . and defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo lives for a challenge like this. The Chiefs will give up yards on the ground to 49ers running back Christian McCaffrey, but bank on defensive tackle Chris Jones wrecking yet another big game. He’ll get to San Francisco quarterback Brock Purdy.
Last year, a buzzed Mahomes groused at the championship parade that the Chiefs had been labeled a “rebuilding” team after trading star wide receiver Tyreek Hill to the Miami Dolphins. He enjoyed proving the critics wrong then. And he has an opportunity to do the same this year: for the third straight game in this playoff run, they’re underdogs on Sunday.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. For two decades, Tom Brady tried his hardest to harness slights into fuel. He and his New England teammates were convinced the league was out to get them. And when people raised their eyebrows at then–42-year-old Brady’s decision to leave the Patriots for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he had the last laugh by winning one more Super Bowl.
Brady always found a reason to chase another ring. So will Mahomes.
While Patrick Mahomes will be the center of attention on the field, Taylor Swift will be a bottomless source of off-the-field excitement—assuming, that is, she can make it to the game after her concert in Tokyo. The Swift-Kelce celebrity juggernaut just keeps on rolling, minting new football fans and nutty conspiracy theories along the way. Paula Froelich digs into the celebrity story of the year—and why football’s old guard shouldn’t be so snooty about the pop sensation.
This Sunday’s Super Bowl matchup of the Kansas City Chiefs versus the San Francisco 49ers is set to be the most expensive ever, with suites at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas going for up to $2.5 million, and a seat in the nosebleeds hovering around $6,000.
And it’s all because of one woman: Taylor Swift.
When Swift started dating Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce last summer, her army of loyal fans became football fans too, adding more than $331 million to the value of his team.
But the NFL’s success has also caused much hand-wringing and confusion, especially among a certain crowd of right-wing men.
Take Boomer Esiason, the Trump supporter and former Cincinnati Bengals quarterback who choked so badly at the only Super Bowl he went to, his performance is ranked the ninth worst in the showdown’s history. This past week, he took to his radio show, Boomer and Gio, to claim the NFL is paying for Swift to fly from Tokyo, where she is on tour, to Las Vegas for the game.
“You gotta know that her people are in touch with the NFL. And her people are probably saying, ‘If you want her at the game, you gotta pay for the jet coming back from Tokyo. And she needs her own suite,’ ” Esiason said.
Esiason’s claims could be brushed off as moronic—except they come on the heels of a MAGA meltdown that has given rise to multiple conspiracy theories about Swift’s Super Bowl attendance, including that she is a Pentagon asset widening her fan base so that she can make the most impact when she throws her star power behind Biden.
Does President Biden want her endorsement for reelection? Of course he does, and he may well get it given that she endorsed him back in 2020. But does that mean her romance with Kelce is a deep-state conspiracy? Of course not.
That said, it’s clear why some conservative dudes fear her. She’s a Democrat, and more than half of U.S. adults now say they are fans of hers—and even people who are nowhere near her core demographic say she could sway their votes.
As Michael Dee, a 67-year-old investment banker and big daughter-guy from Texas, told The Guardian, “I think she could, potentially, absolutely change my mind politically, because she is a strong woman who is a role model to my 24-year-old daughter.”
What’s more, as a self-made billionaire, Swift has more power than almost any man alive. She’s her own boss, so she can’t be threatened or cajoled into doing what other people want.
But while there is no way she is billing the NFL (sorry, Boomer), and she can easily cover the $200,000 cost of a return flight on a luxe jet as well as a $2 million Super Bowl suite, the point is: she shouldn’t have to.
Given how much money she has made for the all-male suits at the NFL, they should club together and not only insist on paying for her travel but roll out a magic carpet, flown by unicorns on a rainbow, to get her to the game.
It’s the gentlemanly thing to do.
When we want hosting advice, there’s only one person we ask, and that’s Liz Lange. Liz is the CEO and creative director of Figue, and the founder of Liz Lange Maternity. And she’s also a great host, whether in New York City or at her Grey Gardens estate in the Hamptons. She may know nothing about football—but she knows how to throw a party.
I couldn’t care less about football, or about the Super Bowl. Every year it kind of sneaks up on me, and then I feel that because I like entertaining, I should probably have some people over and have the game on. I used to like to watch the commercials because they were funny, but not anymore. I’m typically just in the kitchen, chatting with friends and eating with anyone who wants to come in and out.
For me, it’s all about the food and the kibitzing. I normally do Mexican, because I think it goes with football for some reason. I’ll have platters of nachos and make-your-own fajitas: corn and flour tortillas, guacamole, salsa, shredded cheese, crema sauce, ground beef, pulled chicken, lettuce, tomatoes, you get the idea.
At some point, I’ll turn over the buffet and make it a dessert buffet. Here, I’ll depart from the Mexican theme and do plates of cookies, cakes, you name it. As you can tell, I’m really into buffets. I like people to have what they want, and I don’t want to do that annoying thing before someone comes over and ask them about food restrictions.
I’ll also put out a bucket of ice and throw in all different types of beer because I think guys who are watching football want to drink beer. I draw the line, though, at paper plates with the teams on them. I’m just not a theme type of gal.
While not everyone will be watching the game, all of us—including you, Liz—should be excited for Usher’s halftime show. So says Free Press writer Eric Spitznagel, who thinks the R&B legend is set to kill it. Here’s why:
The Super Bowl halftime show is notoriously hit or miss, but I have reason to believe that Usher, this year’s headliner, could deliver a performance for the ages. What makes me think that? Let’s count the ways.
1. He can dance in the rain if necessary.
It’s an unequivocal truth that Prince delivered the greatest halftime show of all time in 2007, when he played “Purple Rain” during a Miami downpour. Usher has demonstrated repeatedly that he’s capable, and even enthusiastic, about performing in the rain, from his 2001 video for “U Got It Bad” to his rain-soaked performance at the 2004 VMAs to his sloshy-shoed remake of Gene Kelly’s “Singin’ in the Rain.”
The forecast for Sunday doesn’t call for rain, but Usher is ready if that changes.
2. This isn’t his first rodeo.
Back in 2011, the Black Eyed Peas played a mostly panned halftime show, but there was one memorable moment: a guest appearance by Usher, who was lowered to the stage from the stadium’s ceiling on a freaking chain!
Plus, Usher has spent the last two years performing a career-spanning residency in Las Vegas, which he wrapped up in December. “I played 100 shows in Las Vegas,” he told Billboard. “And my 101st will be the Super Bowl.” The man is anything but rusty.
3. He has a history of wardrobe malfunctions.
Nobody wants a repeat of the 2004 halftime show, in which Justin Timberlake “accidentally” exposed Janet Jackson’s breast. Except don’t we though? Usher is no stranger to wardrobe malfunctions. His pants have ripped open during a performance not once, but twice.
4. It’s going to get weird.
The halftime shows that stay with us are the ones that make us wonder, What the hell did I just see? Whether it’s Diana Ross leaving via helicopter in 1996, or Michael Jackson just standing there quietly for two solid minutes in 1993, or the entire 1988 show, which featured 88 tuxedoed pianists, 300 Jazzercisers, and Chubby Checker, we yearn for the stupid and surreal.
If the unnamed source who spoke to Page Six can be believed, Usher’s halftime show will likely include “pole dancers—dressed in a tasteful manner, of course—as well as dancers on roller skates.” Buckle up, friends. It’s going to be a wild ride.
Free Press intern Evan Gardner turns 21 today (Happy birthday, Evan!). That means he can finally enjoy the big game with a beer in hand. Here, he weighs his options ahead of kickoff.
While I have long taken part in the time-honored American tradition of snacking on as many buffalo wings as possible and watching grown men slam into each other for three hours straight, I’m ready to watch football the way it was meant to be watched; unfortunately, I have no idea what I like to drink. So I’ve drawn up a list of beers to sample tomorrow night.
Bud Light: America’s former number one beer became a casualty of the culture wars when it was boycotted by conservatives for working with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. But Bud Light is trying to reclaim the top spot with an inoffensive Super Bowl ad and a partnership with the canceled—and now uncanceled—comedian Shane Gillis. President Trump recently called for his supporters to give the drink another chance, declaring Budweiser’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch InBev—in which he is a shareholder—“not a woke company.”
I’m all for burying the culture war hatchet. Which is why I’ll be sipping this liberal lemonade and cheering whenever I see beloved psyop Taylor Swift.
Ultra Right: Here at The Free Press, we’re big believers in reaching across the aisle and engaging with all ideologies—which means that I am compelled, out of a sense of professional duty, to add Conservative Dad’s 100 percent Woke-Free Ultra Right to my must-drink list.
Modelo: Because I want an authentic American experience tomorrow night, I have to try America’s top beer: Modelo. I’m eager to get a taste of the real, America First option, brewed locally in. . . actually, never mind where it comes from. I know it tastes like patriotism.
PBR: Because I still want to be in a country song.
Natty Light: This one has a special place in my heart; it’s the beer that means home. Sophomore year, I came back to my dorm every night, where I would be greeted by a chandelier covered in Natty Light cans and a bathroom floor covered in their spilled contents. If nothing else, it’s the only beer I know that doubles as an interior design accent.
(Hazy?) IPA: I have no idea what this actually is, but it feels true to my Brooklyn roots. Whatever the letters stand for, they sound like Bushwick and beards to me. What could be more comforting than that?
White Claw: Only here for DEI reasons. I’m sure my dorm screening will have enough TV static; I don’t need my drink to taste like it, too.
Readers, help Evan in his alcoholic education. What beers should he try next? Let us know in the comments.
We understand that not everybody will be organizing their weekend around the Super Bowl. And even if you are—there’s plenty of time to fill before kickoff. So here’s Free Press managing editor Margi Conklin with some other cultural recommendations for the weekend.
At the start of the year, I resolved to read more books. Well, by following the Rob Henderson method of reading at least 10 pages a day, I’m happy to report that last week I completed the novel Beautiful World, Where Are You? by Irish millennial sensation Sally Rooney.
At only 32, Sally’s written three bestsellers. I’ve read them all. What I love about her writing is her unique voice: it’s both detached and intimate. She uses no quote marks in her dialogue, which makes you feel like you’re reading her characters’ inner thoughts. And what are her characters thinking about?
Sex.
Honestly, no author in the world writes about sex better than Sally. Somehow, she manages to convey the beauty—the heat—of physical connection without making the reader cringe or squirm or feel like they’ve stumbled onto a porn set. I cannot stand Fifty Shades of Grey—but this? This is art!
If you’re new to Sally’s work, I recommend you skip books one and three and go straight to her middle masterpiece: Normal People, which is the (less tragic) Romeo and Juliet of our day. And the TV series of the book is somehow just as good. Read it, then stream it. I dare you not to cry.
Meantime, my current Sunday viewing pleasure is The Gilded Age on MAX. Set in nineteenth-century New York City, the show is the American Downton Abbey with even more class war. Everywhere, factions of society—rich and poor, black and white, old money and new money—are duking it out, and you can’t help but take sides. I am partial to beautiful upstart Bertha Russell, played by Carrie Coon, whose frocks and hats are as bright and bold as her ambition.
This Sunday, per family tradition, I will be watching the Super Bowl with my husband and parents. But before that, we plan to stream Ferrari, the film about Italian motor god Enzo Ferrari. My dad used to build race cars, so we enjoy a good movie with some thrust. In 2019, we loved Ford v Ferrari, about the first U.S. team to beat the Europeans at Le Mans. Back then, I rooted for the Americans. But this time, with a cool Adam Driver at the wheel as Enzo, I have a feeling my loyalties will slip.
Become a Free Press subscriber today:
The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through Bookshop.org links in this article.
Substacks
January 14, 2025 Heather Cox Richardson
Shortly after midnight last night, the Justice Department released special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on former president Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The 137-page report concludes that “substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump…engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power.”
The report explains the case Smith and his team compiled against Trump. It outlines the ways in which evidence proved Trump broke laws, and it lays out the federal interests served by prosecuting Trump. It explains how the team investigated Trump, interviewing more than 250 people and obtaining the testimony of more than 55 witnesses before a grand jury, and how Justice Department policy governed that investigation. It also explains how Trump’s litigation and the U.S. Supreme Court’s surprising determination that Trump enjoyed immunity from prosecution for breaking laws as part of his official duties dramatically slowed the prosecution.
There is little in the part of the report covering Trump’s behavior that was not already public information. The report explains how Trump lied that he won the 2020 presidential election and continued to lie even when his own appointees and employees told him he had lost. It lays out how he pressured state officials to throw out votes for his opponent, then-president-elect Joe Biden, and how he and his cronies recruited false electors in key states Trump lost to create slates of false electoral votes.
It explains how Trump tried to force Justice Department officials to support his lie and to trick states into rescinding their electoral votes for Biden and how, finally, he pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to either throw out votes for Biden or send state counts back to the states. When Pence refused, correctly asserting that he had no such power, Trump urged his supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol. He refused to call them off for hours.
Smith explained that the Justice Department concluded that Trump was guilty on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States by trying “to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest”; obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct by creating false evidence; and conspiracy against rights by trying to take away people’s right to vote for president.
The report explains why the Justice Department did not bring charges against Trump for insurrection, noting that such cases are rare and definitions of “insurrection” are unclear, raising concerns that such a charge would endanger the larger case.
The report explained that prosecuting Trump served important national interests. The government has an interest in the integrity of the country’s process for “collecting, counting, and certifying presidential elections.” It cares about “a peaceful and orderly transition of presidential power.” It cares that “every citizen’s vote is counted” and about “protecting public officials and government workers from violence.” Finally, it cares about “the fair and even-handed enforcement of the law.”
While the report contained little new information, what jumped out from its stark recitation of the events of late 2020 and early 2021 was the power of Trump’s lies. There was no evidence that he won the 2020 election; to the contrary, all evidence showed he lost it. Even he didn’t appear to believe he had won. And yet, by the sheer power of repeating the lie that he had won and getting his cronies to repeat it, along with embellishments that were also lies—about suitcases of ballots, and thumb drives, and voting machines, and so on—he induced his followers to try to overthrow a free and fair election and install him in the presidency.
He continued this disinformation after he left office, and then engaged in lawfare, with both him and friendly witnesses slowing down his cases by challenging subpoenas until there were no more avenues to challenge them. And then the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in.
The report calls out the extraordinary July 2024 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States declaring that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts. “Before this case,” the report reads, “no court had ever found that Presidents are immune from criminal responsibility for their official acts, and no text in the Constitution explicitly confers such criminal immunity on the President.” It continued: “[N]o President whose conduct was investigated (other than Mr. Trump) ever claimed absolute criminal immunity for all official acts.”
The report quoted the dissent of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, noting that the decision of the Republican-appointed justices “effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.”
That observation hits hard today, as January 14 is officially Ratification Day, the anniversary of the day in 1784 when members of the Confederation Congress ratified the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War and formally recognized the independence of the United States from Great Britain. The colonists had thrown off monarchy and determined to have a government of laws, not of men.
But Trump threw off that bedrock principle with a lie. His success recalls how Confederates who lost the Civil War resurrected their cause by claiming that the lenience of General Ulysses S. Grant of the United States toward officers and soldiers who surrendered at Appomattox Court House in April 1865 showed not the mercy of a victor but rather an understanding that the Confederates’ defense of human slavery was superior to the ideas of those trying to preserve the United States as a land based in the idea that all men were created equal.
When no punishment was forthcoming for those who had tried to destroy the United States, that story of Appomattox became the myth of the Lost Cause, defending the racial hierarchies of the Old South and attacking the federal government that tried to make opportunity and equal rights available for everyone. In response to federal protection of Black rights after 1948, when President Harry Truman desegregated the U.S. military, Confederate symbols and Confederate ideology began their return to the front of American culture, where they fed the reactionary right. The myth of the Lost Cause and Trump’s lie came together in the rioters who carried the Confederate battle flag when they breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth, is adamant about restoring the names of Confederate generals to U.S. military installations. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee began today.
The defense secretary oversees about 1.3 million active-duty troops and another 1.4 million in the National Guard and employed in Reserves and civilian positions, as well as a budget of more than $800 billion. Hegseth has none of the usual qualifications of defense secretaries. As Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare pointed out today, he has “never held a policy role…never run anything larger than a company of 200 soldiers…never been elected to anything.”
Hegseth suggested his lack of qualifications was a strength, saying in his opening statement that while “[i]t is true that I don’t have a similar biography to Defense Secretaries of the last 30 years…as President Trump…told me, we’ve repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’…and where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it’s time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm.”
The “dust on his boots” claim was designed to make Hegseth’s authenticity outweigh his lack of credentials, but former Marine pilot Amy McGrath pointed out that Trump’s defense secretary James Mattis and Biden’s defense secretary Lloyd Austin, both of whom reached the top ranks of the military, each came from the infantry.
Hegseth has settled an accusation of sexual assault, appears to have a history of alcohol abuse, and has been accused of financial mismanagement at two small veterans’ nonprofits. But he appears to embody the sort of strongman ethos Trump craves. Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”
When Hegseth was in the Army National Guard, a fellow service member who was the unit’s security guard and on an anti-terrorism team flagged Hegseth to their unit’s leadership because one of his tattoos is used by white supremacists. Extremist tattoos are prohibited by army regulations. Hegseth lobbied Trump to intervene in the cases of service members accused of war crimes, and he cheered on Trump’s January 6, 2021, rally. Hegseth has said women do not belong in combat and has been vocal about his opposition to the equity and inclusion measures in the military that he calls “woke.”
Wittes noted after today’s hearing that “[t]he words ‘Russia’ and ‘Ukraine’ barely came up. The words ‘China’ and ‘Taiwan’ made only marginally more conspicuous an appearance. The defense of Europe? One would hardly know such a place as Europe even existed. By contrast, the words ‘lethality,’ ‘woke,’ and ‘DEI’ came up repeatedly. The nominee sparred with members of the committee over the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘equity.’”
Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) spoke today in favor of Hegseth, and Republicans initially uncomfortable with the nominee appear to be coming around to supporting him. But Hegseth refused to meet with Democrats on the committee, and they made it clear that they will not make the vote easy for Republicans.
The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he did not believe Hegseth was qualified for the position. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) exposed his lack of knowledge about U.S. allies and bluntly told him he was unqualified, later telling MSNBC that Hegseth will be an easy target for adversaries with blackmail material.
Hegseth told the armed services committee that all the negative information about him was part of a “smear campaign,” at the same time that he refused to say he would refuse to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs or refuse an unconstitutional order.
After the release of Jack Smith’s report, Trump posted on his social media channel that regardless of what he had done to the country, voters had exonerated him: “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” he wrote, lying about a victory in which more voters chose someone other than him. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”
It’s as if the Confederates’ descendants have captured the government of the United States.
Notes:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0026-0004
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation–the-cult-of-unqualified-authenticity
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/pete-hegseth-books-trump/680744/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/13/politics/pete-hegseth-confederate-generals-military-bases/index.html
Bluesky:
atrupar.com/post/3lfqlujuzzk2y
atrupar.com/post/3lfqlpxmerk2y
atrupar.com/post/3lfpia6qs422m
atrupar.com/post/3lfpj4w7dlk2m
X:
amymcgrathky/status/1879162507992215694
Substacks
Pete Hegseth Shows His Hand Eli Lake
If you want to know what a post-woke military might look like, Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Pentagon just gave America a preview.
At his nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pete Hegseth pledged that he would direct his secretary of the Navy to focus on rebuilding the fleet instead of climate change. His secretary of the Army would focus on making war more lethal and effective, instead of figuring out how to build tanks that don’t run on gasoline. And the standards for military promotion would be based on merit, not a person’s skin color, sexuality, or gender.
Hegseth said that under his leadership, he would take steps to reverse the Pentagon’s decision to fire tens of thousands of service members who refused to take the Covid vaccine. “In President Trump’s Defense Department they will be apologized to. They will be reinstituted with pay and rank,” the nominee said.
It was a contentious hearing, as Democrats attacked Hegseth for everything from allegations of his marital infidelity and sexual assault to his lack of experience managing an organization as large and complex as the Pentagon. But the Republicans made Hegseth out to be the real victim, and by the time the hearing ended, it seemed like a near lock that he’ll be confirmed.
Substacks
Porn Is Inevitable River Page
American lawmakers are about to determine the future of pornography, or they’re trying, at least. In recent years, nineteen states—most of them Republican-led—have passed legislation that requires any site with a significant amount of adult content to prove all its users are over 18. Most recently, on New Year’s Day, a new law called HB 3 took effect in my home state of Florida, where porn sites now face fines of up to $50,000 for every violation. But this week, such laws could be found unconstitutional.
This is all thanks to the Free Speech Coalition, a sort of NRA for pornographers, which has sued Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a religious hard-liner, over that state’s age verification law. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear FSC’s case, which argues that these porn laws undermine free speech, infringe on privacy, and hurt American companies, while doing nothing to block foreign and fringe sites that don’t comply with U.S. laws.
The rationale behind the laws is understandable: Studies have shown that pornography consumption by teenagers can lead to misogynistic attitudes and increased sexual aggression. It’s also linked to mental health problems and increased rates of unsafe sex. More to the point, most parents are uncomfortable with the idea of their children having access to terabytes worth of hardcore pornography at the touch of a button.
But these laws are fundamentally pointless. First etched into mammoth tusks 40,000 years ago, porn predates the written word. It is inevitable—and in the internet age, infinitely accessible—even in places where so-called “porn bans” have been enacted.
-
Awakening Video1 year ago
This is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
-
Substacks10 months ago
THE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
-
Substacks1 year ago
The Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
-
Substacks1 year ago
A real fact-check of Trump’s appearance on Meet the Press Judd Legum
-
Substacks1 year ago
Letter to the Children of Gaza – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges