R Magic Brow

Why does buying a home feel more out of reach than ever? According to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, the answer isn’t corporate greed, mysterious market manipulation, or some hidden conspiracy theory. It’s basic economics and government policy.Citing new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and data from the National Association of Home Builders, Beck argues that America’s housing affordability crisis stems from a collision of rising demand and artificially constrained supply.“Thirty percent of the increase in U.S. home prices from '21 to '24 along with 20% of the rise in rent prices comes from just bringing in seven, 10, 15 million people and just adding them in,” Glenn explains.“Today, our home, the typical American house, runs closer to five times what a family earns in a year,” he adds.Back in March, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas ran the numbers on what seven million illegal border crossings under the Biden administration did to the local housing market.In Dallas, it put “roughly 30% of the total run-up in home prices and about 20% of the run-up in rents.”“Every 1% increase in unauthorized workers relative to the local workforce pushed the home price up 2.2%. And rents up 1.4%. So you want to know why we’re having a hard time buying houses?” he asks, answering, “It’s because our local governments along with the federal and state government are completely out of control with regulation, and our federal government just opened up the borders.”“Now, why isn’t that being explained to the American people?” he asks.“It’s not the builders. It’s not the people selling the houses. It’s the government that is the problem,” he says.And while the Biden administration spent four years adding millions of people to the demand side, local and federal governments made it "slower and more expensive to add anything to the supply side."“There’s no mystery here. There’s no shadowy cartel. There’s no Jew behind the corner. It’s a bathtub with the tap wide open and a towel that is stuffed in the drain,” Glenn explains.“Which means the fix should be just as simple. And there are three fixes,” he says.“One, don’t add people to the country faster than you can add roofs to it. ... Two, make it legal to build a cheap house. ... Three, stop borrowing money you didn’t have because the deficit sets the interest rate and the interest rate sets the mortgage,” he continues. “I don’t know why we don’t do this.”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.

Substack has identified a real problem. It may have chosen the worst possible solution.On July 21, Substack co‑founder Chris Best announced a new feature called “scan for AI text.” Readers can run posts, Notes, comments, and replies longer than 100 words through an AI detector made by Pangram. The resulting report estimates how much of the text was written by a human and how much was generated or assisted by artificial intelligence.An unexplained algorithmic score is not proof of authorship.Best calls the problem “Claudefishing”: Passing off machine‑generated writing as the product of a human mind. He argues that readers deserve to know whether they are engaging with a person or, in his words, something “written by no one.”That concern is legitimate. Anyone who spends much time online can recognize the rise of AI slop: The smooth, bloated, strangely lifeless prose that says very little in far too many words. It’s taking over LinkedIn, search results, marketing blogs, and, increasingly, journalism.But Substack’s solution risks creating another problem: a culture in which every writer is treated as a potential fraud and every reader is encouraged to become an investigator.Pangram is good, but still not good enoughPangram is not one of the primitive AI detectors that declares that Dickens used ChatGPT. It may be the most capable product in its category.The system is a machine‑learning classifier trained on both human‑written and AI‑generated documents. It breaks text into tokens, converts them into numerical representations, and looks for patterns its model associates with human or machine authorship.Pangram says it repeatedly searches large collections of human writing for passages its model gets wrong, adds those difficult examples to its training data, and retrains the detector.Its current model, Pangram 3.3, also uses an architecture called EditLens, which attempts to estimate not merely whether AI was involved but how extensively a human text may have been edited by AI.Pangram claims an overall accuracy above 99% and a false‑positive rate of one in 10,000 human documents. Independent research has generally found it far more accurate than competing detectors. One University of Chicago study found almost no false positives among roughly 3,000 medium‑ and long‑form samples.That sounds reassuring until Pangram is applied to individual human beings.A detector can be excellent at identifying broad trends across millions of documents and still be inappropriate as a lie detector for a particular writer. At sufficient scale, even a one‑in‑10,000 error rate produces innocent people who must somehow prove that they wrote their own words.Pangram CEO Max Spero has said the detector should “never be the ending arbiter.” But he has also acknowledged that the model’s internal reasoning is largely uninterpretable. It can provide a score, but it cannot necessarily explain which meaningful piece of evidence caused it to reach its verdict, according to the Atlantic.That is a serious problem when the verdict carries the implicit accusation that an author is a liar.Substack’s own moral authority was falsely flaggedThe irony is hard to miss.In his announcement, Best invokes writer Freddie deBoer to explain why undisclosed AI writing is a betrayal of the reader. Best quotes from a June essay by deBoer arguing that the value of art lies partly in knowing there is a human consciousness behind it.But just two days before Best announced the Pangram integration, deBoer published a detailed account of Pangram failing to recognize his own human writing.RELATED: Is Google's next Android feature always-on eavesdropping? Yuliia Kaveshnikova/Getty Images Someone had accused deBoer of using AI after Pangram classified a roughly 300‑word section of one of his essays as entirely AI‑written. DeBoer knew that was false.When he submitted the full 5,000‑word essay, however, Pangram declared it entirely human. When he divided the supposedly artificial passage into smaller pieces, those pieces were also classified as human.The same words became human or artificial depending on how much surrounding text deBoer submitted.So the writer Substack chose as its moral authority on the importance of human authorship had just become a case study in the inability of Substack’s chosen detector to identify human authorship reliably in an individual case.Best apparently agrees with deBoer that readers should not be deceived about whether a human being stands behind a piece of writing. But Pangram had placed deBoer in exactly the opposite position: A human writer was forced to defend himself against a machine suggesting that no human stood behind his words.That contradiction should have given Substack pause. Instead, it gave every reader access to the machine.Technology journalist Taylor Lorenz was also accused of using AI after Pangram flagged her work. Spero later investigated and concluded that the detector had made a mistake. Lorenz was fortunate enough to have an edit history supporting her account.How many ordinary writers maintain a forensic record of every keystroke?Meanwhile, determined AI users can still fool detectors. Researchers have shown that paraphrasing systems and even text generated by certain base models can appear human to Pangram and other commercial products.The detector may therefore place the greatest burden on honest writers, while sophisticated slop merchants adapt their methods and move on.A human writer trapped by a machineI’ve already seen what detector paranoia does to people.A local author I know spent months rewriting her book because she could not persuade an AI detector to score it below roughly 30% AI‑generated.She is an older woman who has written numerous books. She is not immersed in technology and had no secret scheme to automate her writing. Yet the detector’s judgment became more credible to her than her own knowledge of how the book had been created.So she rewrote it. Then she rewrote it again.She changed genuine human sentences because a machine found them insufficiently human. Months of work were swallowed by an attempt to satisfy an algorithm that could neither know her nor explain itself to her.I don’t know whether Pangram would have produced the same result, but that’s beside the point. The tragedy is that we have taught writers to regard an unexplained percentage produced by a machine as a moral verdict.Substack is now placing that dynamic directly inside a platform supposedly built around the relationship between writers and readers.The detector becomes the editorSubstack has included some safeguards.The scan is not automatically displayed on every post. A reader must request it. Writers can add a “how I make this” statement explaining their process, report an apparent error, or disable detection on their work.But Substack’s support documentation says that disabling it causes readers to see an “AI detection unavailable” notice.That may be technically neutral, but anyone familiar with online pile‑ons knows how it will be interpreted: What is this writer hiding?And what happens after a false result begins circulating?RELATED: Private companies are tracking your location without notice or a warrant — and it's all perfectly legal Moor Studio/Getty Images Substack’s published procedure offers a feedback form and the ability to remove a scan. It does not offer anything resembling due process.Pangram can correct its model later, but it cannot pull back screenshots, repair a damaged reputation, or stop a suspicious reader from repeating the accusation elsewhere.The company may investigate complaints in good faith. Its engineers may be responsible people doing impressive work. But the writer is still being judged by a proprietary system whose reasoning neither the writer nor the reader can inspect.There is also a deeper irony here. Substack is installing an artificial intelligence system to judge whether human beings are writing like artificial intelligence.Suppose a writer scans a draft and Pangram says it is 30% AI‑assisted. The writer changes the offending passages until the score falls to zero.Has he made the writing more human? Or has he allowed an AI system to edit his work through negative reinforcement?The detector may not have supplied any words, but it has shaped the final text. The writer is no longer composing solely for readers. He is writing to please the machine that certifies his humanity.By Substack’s own standards, does that count as AI‑assisted content?The incentives are already changing. Independent scholar and entrepreneur Justin Murphy recently announced that he is co-founding a startup designed to help people protect themselves from AI detectors. At first glance, that sounds troubling. On second thought, it may be inevitable.Once platforms begin judging writers with AI, someone will build AI to defeat those judges. Then the detectors will improve. Then the evasion tools will improve. We will have created an arms race in which one artificial intelligence writes, another disguises the writing, and a third attempts to expose it. Meanwhile, the actual question readers care about — whether the work contains original, thoughtful, compelling ideas — gets pushed farther into the background.Judge the workPersonally, I don’t care much whether a writer used AI somewhere in the process.There is nothing to be gained by staring suspiciously at every sentence and wondering whether a chatbot touched it. That road ends in paranoia, accusations, and writers deliberately making their prose worse because polished writing has become evidence of guilt.I care whether the author has an original and compelling idea. I care whether it is presented coherently and clearly. I care whether the writer has done the work necessary to understand the subject and whether he is willing to stand behind what he publishes.I also hate AI slop. Its laziness offends me.But slop is not objectionable because it was made by a machine. It is objectionable because it is derivative, padded, evasive, and boring.Humans produced plenty of slop before ChatGPT. Artificial intelligence has merely made it cheaper and faster. Arguably, most AI slop is better than the sort of slop produced by cut-rate third-world blog writers.Editors should reject bad work. Readers should unsubscribe from writers who waste their time. Publications may reasonably require writers to disclose how they use AI. Serious accusations may sometimes justify examining drafts, notes, sources, and document histories.But an unexplained algorithmic score is not proof of authorship.Substack says it wants to preserve trust between writers and readers. Trust, however, cannot be manufactured by inviting readers to run secret authenticity tests on every post.A platform built around direct relationships should not insert a machine informant between the writer and the reader.

What do Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and a viral body-camera video from the University of Central Florida have in common? More than most people might think.Last weekend, I attended an instructor-certification program at Gracie University in Torrance, California. It was my third time completing the training since I began studying Gracie Jiu-Jitsu six years ago. Rener and Ryron Gracie have developed a remarkable system that adapts essential techniques for real-world confrontations while prioritizing everyone’s safety.The objective of every arrest should be simple: The officer goes home safely, the suspect enters custody alive and without unnecessary injury, and bystanders remain safe.They also helped develop SafeWrap, a restraint system created after medical professionals asked for a safer way to control violent patients. Hospitals sometimes needed five or six nurses to restrain one belligerent person, exposing staff and patients to serious injury.That problem came to mind while I watched the UCF video. The encounter has become another argument about pronouns, mental health, and whether the officer used the right words. Those questions may deserve discussion. But the video also reveals a more practical failure: It took officers far too long to place one resisting person in handcuffs. The officer began with verbal commands. When those failed, he warned that he would use pepper spray. Backup arrived. The student continued resisting. Officers threatened a Taser and eventually deployed it, yet the struggle continued before they finally secured the handcuffs.Whatever one thinks about the politics surrounding the incident, a prolonged physical struggle endangers everyone involved.Every additional second increases the chance of serious injury. Officers suffer damaged shoulders, backs, and hands. Suspects can strike their heads, break bones, or experience medical emergencies. Bystanders can become involved. A routine arrest can turn into a tragedy when officers lack a reliable method for establishing control without escalating through increasingly severe force.This is where Gracie training deserves serious attention.I am a professor, not a police officer or medical professional. But I have trained in Gracie Combatives and SafeWrap, and the underlying principle is straightforward: Use position, leverage, and technique to control a dangerous person quickly while minimizing injury.RELATED: ‘Just say the right pronoun!’ How one cop-cam video exemplifies the absurdity of 'hands-off' policing kali9/iStock/Getty ImagesPolice departments should study Gracie Survival Tactics. The program adapts the same philosophy behind SafeWrap for law enforcement, teaching officers to establish positional control, restrain resisting subjects, and transition safely to handcuffing.Gracie Jiu-Jitsu teaches a smaller or weaker person to overcome a larger opponent through skill rather than brute force. Applied properly, those techniques help officers manage dangerous encounters involving suspects, bystanders, and fellow officers.The goal is not to win a fight. It is to end the fight safely and move the suspect into the justice system.Good control tactics can reduce the need for repeated strikes, prolonged wrestling, and repeated use of intermediate weapons. They also make officers less likely to escalate out of fear or frustration because they have techniques that work under pressure.Pain compliance often fails when a person is intoxicated, mentally ill, or in extreme emotional distress. Pepper spray does not affect everyone equally. Tasers do not always produce immediate compliance. The UCF student was tased and still resisted.RELATED: ‘Back the blue’ cannot mean blind obedience gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty ImagesWhen those tools fail, officers need a dependable way to control the person. Simply forcing a suspect prone and placing a knee on the back is neither reliable nor always medically safe. A subject can still posture onto his hands and knees, and prolonged pressure can create additional risks.Safe restraint training offers a better option. Departments around the country have trained with Rener Gracie, and law enforcement professionals have provided favorable testimonials. The Los Angeles Police Department has also discussed the program’s effectiveness here.America spends enormous sums on police technology while devoting comparatively little time to ensuring that every officer has competent grappling and restraint skills. We would never expect firefighters to rely on better hoses while neglecting rescue training. Policing deserves the same practical standard.The objective of every arrest should be simple: The officer goes home safely, the suspect enters custody alive and without unnecessary injury, and bystanders remain safe.Viral arrest videos will always invite political arguments. But anyone who wants fewer injuries, lawsuits, and controversial uses of force should support one practical reform: Train officers to control resisting suspects safely, efficiently, and humanely before the encounter spirals into something worse.I train at Gracie Glendale in Phoenix and value every trip to Gracie University in Torrance. Medical and law enforcement professionals should consider SafeWrap and Gracie Survival Tactics. Citizens who want policing to be both effective and humane should ask their local departments whether officers receive this kind of training.

The 2026 World Cup was initially about soccer for Scottish travelers, but it very quickly became about beer.During the historic tournament, the Scots used Boston as their home base, where they became known for showing up at different events in droves, singing and drinking.'Do they ever sleep? Do they ever get tired?'Whether it was Fenway Park or the local pub, the Scottish fans drank multiple establishments dry. One example was the Black Rose, where a local fan remarked that the bar had never gone dry in its 50-year history. With the Scottish travelers around, however, the venue ran out of drinks "including water" for the first time.Scotland played two out of its three World Cup games at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts: a 1-0 win against Haiti and a 1-0 loss to Morocco.During that time, the fans known as the Tartan Army — which refers to the tartan pattern, aka plaid — fell in love with one particular American staple native to the area: Samuel Adams.In particular, the Scots loved Samuel Adams Boston Lager so much that the brewery pub ran out.The company told ABC News in June that its flagship taproom went dry after the Tartan Army drank four times what is typically sold, all during Scotland's first game."Do they ever sleep? Do they ever get tired?" one employee asked. This spawned an "emergency order" to prepare for the next game, and the rest is history.Now, the new favorite is officially available in Scotland for fans to (responsibly) pound on their home turf.RELATED: Belgian soccer players mock Trump after absolute rout of Team USA in World Cup Plaid-ing outU.K.-based online craft beer retailer Beerhunter is now officially carrying Samuel Adams Boston Lager on its website.As an import, it's obviously going to cost a few quid, currently listed on sale for £49.46 (~$56) for a 12-pack, down from its usual price of £54.95 (~$62)."Samuel Adams Boston Lager became part of Scotland's World Cup story this summer," Ryan Smith, director of Beerhunter, told Scottish outlet the Herald."We saw incredible interest after the Tartan Army made headlines in Boston, and we've had customers asking us ever since when it would be available in the U.K. again," Smith continued.Smith said he was delighted to bring the beer back to Scotland while praising its tradition. The beer had become scarce in Scotland somewhere between 2023 and 2024."It's an iconic American lager with a fantastic brewing heritage, and we think Scottish fans will enjoy raising another glass to some unforgettable memories."RELATED: Jasmine Crockett suggests anyone who was rooting for Argentina at the World Cup is racist Taylor Coester/Washington Post/Getty ImagesA hoppy revolutionOf course, it cannot be glossed over how Samuel Adams himself was a British citizen who fell in love with the idea of the United States.According to his biography, Adams often cited the Magna Carta of 1215 as a reason to protest British rule over Massachusetts. Barons in England had faced resistance for their taxation, and Adams found Boston's struggles against taxes "all too familiar."Adams founded the Sons of Liberty, a paramilitary political organization that coined the phrase "No taxation without representation."While Adams and taxation may have been part of what separated the British and the Americans at one time, the beer that bears Adams' name is seemingly what has brought them back together — at least the Scottish portion of them.Beerhunter also lists Samuel Adams American Cherry Wheat Beer, Summer Ale, and the Beers of Summer variety pack on its website.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!