Commentary Culture Investigations

On the latest episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” Karl Brauer and I talk about a feature drivers almost universally dislike: start-stop technology.You know the feeling. You pull up to a light, the engine shuts off, and for a split second you wonder whether the car just stalled. Then it lurches back to life when traffic moves again.This is not a beloved convenience feature. It’s not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another.Automakers have spent years smoothing it out, but that hasn’t changed the basic problem. Most drivers still don’t like it. And now, with federal greenhouse gas rules being rolled back, there is a real question hanging over the industry: Will start-stop finally disappear?This is one of those rare automotive issues on which regular drivers and enthusiasts agree. People neither want nor trust this technology. And many resent being forced to pay for something that was added mainly to satisfy regulations rather than improve the driving experience.Fuel me onceStart-stop did not spread through the market because drivers demanded it.It spread because automakers were given a fuel-economy benefit for installing it under federal rules tied to corporate average fuel economy — CAFE standards. In practical terms, the feature helped manufacturers squeeze out regulatory compliance on paper by shutting the engine off at stops.That may look efficient in a spreadsheet. It looks very different in real traffic.The problem is that traffic is not clean or predictable. It is constant stop-and-go movement, with drivers creeping, hesitating, inching forward, braking, and accelerating again.As our guest Mike Harley points out, driving is analog. Those in-between moments — when you are not sure whether traffic is actually moving — are exactly where the system is intrusive and out of sync.Light-bulb momentDrivers worry about wear on the starter, wear on the engine, and long-term reliability. Whether every concern is equally justified, the perception problem is real.Many drivers believe the system adds strain and complexity to a vehicle they are already maintaining at significant cost.Karl makes the point bluntly. He compares it to the old incandescent light bulb: The moment of greatest strain is when it is first turned on. His argument is that starting the engine repeatedly creates the same kind of wear event over and over again.That’s a simple way to understand why the feature bothers people.Consumers are already dealing with high repair costs, expensive electronics, and rising replacement part prices. A system that repeatedly shuts down and restarts the engine does not seem like a benefit. It is one more thing that could break.And that’s where the frustration really sets in.Drivers are told the system is there for efficiency. But if it contributes to more wear, more service visits, or more expensive repairs, the cost falls on them — not on the regulators who pushed the standard.As I have reported previously, mechanics consistently point to increased strain on starters and batteries — even with reinforced components.RELATED: Start-stop stiffed: EPA kills annoying automatic engine shutoff Smith Collection/Gado/Saul Loeb/Getty ImagesHesitant to changeI reached out to multiple automakers after hearing that these rules were being reconsidered.The response was revealing.Brand after brand gave essentially the same answer: 2026 models will keep start-stop for now, and they are still evaluating what to do with 2027 vehicles.In other words, even with the regulatory ground shifting, nothing has changed yet on the showroom floor.That tells you two things.First, automakers know the system exists because of regulation, not because customers love it. Second, they are still cautious about changing course until they are sure the rules are fully settled.That caution makes sense from the manufacturer side. But from the consumer side, it means drivers may be stuck with a feature they dislike for longer than expected.Regulatory logicOne reason start-stop has become such a useful example is that it shows what happens when policy priorities move ahead of consumer experience.On paper, the feature looked like an easy win. It improved regulatory averages, gave automakers a compliance tool, and let officials claim environmental progress.But in the real world, drivers are the ones living with the result. They are the ones restarting the engine every time traffic creeps forward. They are the ones shutting the system off manually every time they get in the car. They are the ones paying if extra wear shows up later.That gap between regulatory logic and everyday driving reality is exactly why this feature has become so unpopular.Full stop?It might end — but probably not overnight.Automakers have already built the systems into their current vehicle architectures. Many are not going to rip them out immediately. But if the regulatory credits tied to start-stop truly disappear, the business case for keeping it becomes weaker.That matters because there was never much of a consumer case to begin with.This is not a beloved convenience feature. It’s not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another. If anything, it can push buyers away — especially when it cannot be permanently disabled.And that may be the feature’s biggest weakness. Consumers tolerated it because they assumed they had no choice.A simple questionDrivers have been complaining about start-stop for years, and not because they resist change. They dislike it because it interrupts the driving experience, creates distrust, and solves a regulatory problem more than a consumer one.The rules that justified the feature are starting to shift. The technology itself hasn’t gone anywhere — yet. But for the first time, automakers may have a real opportunity to ask a simple question: If customers don’t want this, why are we still building it?And if they listen, start-stop may finally become a case study in what happens when consumers win one back.You can listen to the full episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl” featuring Mike Harley below:

Katie J.M. Baker & Hamed Aleaziz, NYT

So Hollywood gives us about 16 hours to celebrate the cancellation of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy before announcing the woke-warping of another one of our beloved franchises. This time it’s The Lord of the Rings film franchise getting bent over by no less than “journeyman” screenwriter Stephen Colbert.
The post Nolte: Stephen Colbert Writing ‘Lord of the Rings’ Sequel appeared first on Breitbart.

The House Homeland Security Committee holds a hearing on the dangers presented by the Democrats defunding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday, March 25.
The post Watch Live: Hearing on the Dangers of the Democrat Shutdown of DHS appeared first on Breitbart.

As other celebrities brag about their abortions, one high-profile actress has dared to admit the pain and guilt behind “killing (her) child.” Christina Applegate, star of the ‘90s hit Married With Children and Netflix’s popular dramedy Dead to Me, reveals in her new, bestselling memoir, that abortion is “murder.” She even goes as far as to say the guilt she carried after her abortion and other painful traumas may have played a role in her MS diagnosis decades later.

In the audio version of her memoir You with the Sad Eyes, which went to number one on the New York Times’ Bestseller List, Applegate shares everything from her painful childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, to her current battle with MS which has left her “mostly bedbound.”

After stating, “In late April, 1991, I fell pregnant,” the actress reads from her diary she kept at the time:

Well, yesterday I found out I was 6 1/2 weeks pregnant…. I love this being… I always felt that if I ever got pregnant when I knew it was the wrong time, I wouldn’t have any problem having an abortion. ‘Oh, whatever. It isn’t even a baby yet.’ That’s bullsh*t. This creature’s incredible- makes me feel whole, safe.

She goes on to detail the painful physical and emotional abuse she endured in her relationship with the baby’s father, then continues:

Only days later my diary takes a brutal turn.

I’m f*cking pregnant, and I’m killing my child on Thursday. I’m thinking, ‘Where the f*ck can I go to recuperate from murder?’ His family will hate me when they find out that I killed their family member because they don’t believe in it. But I can’t have this baby because I have work to do to entertain this f*cking world. Besides, I can’t now.
It breaks my heart reading these pages. On June 9, I wrote a poem to my child, convinced it was a baby girl. I have no actual proof, but that doesn’t matter. To this day, I know.

Applegate’s voice catches at that last part, clearly showing how heavy the pain is for her to this day. She proceeds to read the heartfelt poem she wrote to her baby:

Hello, little thing. I feel you every moment of my day. Such a tiny existence. Such an immense effect you have. You are a miracle. A tiny handed miracle. I love you, but you know your fate. It’s not your time. I know you didn’t make that decision, but it can’t be your time. You will live on, though. You will live through another. I hope you will forgive me, but I want you to know how you’ve changed me. You’ve opened my eyes. You’re letting me know something is more important than myself. But mommy can’t be with you right now. But know she loves you- more than any other miracle. And know that when it’s your time it will be your time.

Sadly, her baby was a unique human being that can never be replicated. That baby won’t have another “time” because it was taken from him/her. One wonders if she is telling herself otherwise to cope with her guilt.

Applegate describes how she foresaw a future in which “the bill for all the guilt and unhappiness and trauma would be paid by my body.” She reveals:

Maybe it’s just the long hours I have been spending on my bed thinking about my illness, but in reading these words from more than three decades ago, I find that I suffer a kind of concussive awareness of the future impact of all these dark events from my early life.

Those dark events include her being sexually abused as a child and other painful events in addition to the abusive relationship and abortion. She then explains how she eerily predicted guilt would eventually lead to her illness:

Saturday, September 14, 1991… That word “sorry”
sucks… I can’t be sorry. I can’t feel guilty. Guilt is not an emotion, it’s a disease- a pathetic life altering and, in the long run, fatal disease. It begins in the brain, then spreads the illness throughout the entire body until not only does the mind shut off, but the body, as well.”

She added. “…I did know that something very dangerous was happening inside my soul. Something that might one day shut off my body.”

Applegate’s testimony is proof abortion not only affects the child, but the mother, too. Post-abortive women  deserve our love, support and compassion. If you or someone you love is dealing with grief after an abortion, contact Project Rachel for help. (Not affiliated with or endorsed by Media Research Center.) Many local parishes offer counseling and support groups, as well.

At surface level, Mardi Gras — the pre-Lent festival celebrated with parades, colorful costumes, beads, music, dancing, and feasting on rich foods — can seem like lighthearted, innocent fun.But do its pagan origins and underlying ideology pose a spiritual threat to Christians who choose to participate in the festivities?On a recent episode of “Strange Encounters,” BlazeTV host Rick Burgess addressed this query and warned his audience why this particular holiday is problematic for people serious about following God. The history behind Mardi Gras is dark and complicated.“A lot of historians link the modern version of Mardi Gras with ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman spring fertility festivals,” says Rick.“In those days with these pagan nations … this involved lewdness, sexual immorality, nudity, drunkenness, revelry of every kind. And it was associated with various gods (little g), most typically the god Pan,” he adds.If various forms of debauchery and worshiping pagan gods weren’t enough to give Christians serious pause, these pagan festivals, he explains, involved other perverse activities, including men cross-dressing as women and wearing masks in order to conceal their identities and participate in sinful behavior, which ignited the masquerade tradition.Rick cites Deuteronomy 22:5, which forbids cross-dressing and calls it “an abomination to the Lord.”But if pagan origins weren’t enough to steer Christians away from Mardi Gras, the ideology behind modern celebrations certainly should, he says.“According to the modern tradition of Mardi Gras, it’s the period of personal gratification, indulgence preceding the season of Lent” when Christians, but especially Catholics, “decide to give up something” for the 40 days leading up to Easter, he explains.The idea of indulging in sinful behavior — gluttony, sexual immorality, drunkenness, or otherwise — before a religious season of penance is a deeply heretical idea, says Rick.“You’ll find nowhere in scripture that the scripture would call us to a time of sin in order to prepare for holiness” he says. “No, we’re to repent of all sin, all the time.”Ultimately, Rick sees Christian participation in Mardi Gras like this: “shaking our fist in the face of God almighty, and saying, ‘We’re going to party and participate in sinful revelry and premeditated open rebellion against You, our creator — but don’t worry, we’re going to be good for 40 days so that You’ll forgive us for what we’re about to do.”’Scripture, he says, calls “us to holiness not for 40 days, not for a short period of time, but for every day, all the time.”To hear more of his analysis and commentary, watch the episode above.Want more from Rick Burgess?To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

If only we spent more money on the homeless, we could fix the problem.
The post California Achieves $1M Per Unit Homeless Housing appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Iran is still governed by the fundamentalists.

Can education and artificial intelligence coexist?