Searching desperately for our better angels

If you watch the news these days, it’s hard to deny that we’re living in dark times. Some might even go so far as to make biblical or dystopian claims—that we are witnessing the “end of days.” Every day seems to bring new horrors, each one more disturbing than the last. I often try to reassure myself that it only feels this way because we live in an age of constant connectivity. The 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of the internet play massive roles in shaping the narratives that surround us. They influence and seed our thoughts in how we view the world, and even how we interpret right and wrong. Perhaps a generation ago was spared from this relentless saturation—when the news wasn't always just a tap away. Maybe those were simpler times, when ignorance genuinely would feel like bliss.

The latest event that’s lingered in my mind occurred just a few days ago: Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee, was stabbed to death by a repeat offender on a light-rail commuter train in Charlotte, North Carolina. The final moments of her life were captured by the train’s security camera—yet no one came to help her. Not one person. One by one, passengers around her stood up, took their belongings, and walked away as if nothing was happening. The footage revealed not only the brutality of her killer, but also the chilling absence of empathy among those who could have intervened. It was a moment that exposed a deeper, more unsettling question: What kind of society are we devolving into?

A few days later, conservative speaker and influencer Charlie Kirk was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. While conducting a Q&A session—a format he regularly uses on college campuses—Kirk was fatally shot in the neck by a gunman positioned on a nearby rooftop. The open-air event offered little protection, and the assassin exploited this vulnerability. The suspect later turned himself in, reportedly with the help of his father. His motivation was rooted in political opposition: he vehemently disagreed with Kirk’s views and chose violence as a means to silence him.

I can’t imagine what Kirk’s family must be going through right now, especially since his wife and children witnessed the event. What happened was horrible enough but to see people rejoicing in his murder is bone chilling. Just writing this has been difficult. I was raised to believe that everyone has the right to their opinion, even if I disagree with them. Violence was never something to even remotely consider. You can’t claim to support freedom of speech only when it’s convenient, safe, or aligned with your beliefs. True freedom of speech protects the ideas we disagree with — sometimes to our very core. But to consider murdering someone to silence them — to achieve a goal, a political goal — is beyond depraved.

And yet... here we are.

I was raised Catholic even though I’m no longer a practicing Catholic. My political beliefs lean strongly Libertarian. I’ve never fit neatly into either of the two major parties’ boxes. I’ve always had friends on both sides of the aisle and have had plenty of passionate debates with all of them over the years. Never once did I feel the urge to put a bullet in one of their heads because what they happen to believe differs from my particular worldview.

According to a survey conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), around 38% of respondents said it would be “somewhat justified” to murder President Trump, while 31% said the same about Elon Musk. Among self-identified left-leaning respondents, those numbers rose to 48% and 55%, respectively.

What in God’s name is going on when this kind of thinking becomes mainstream? I’ve never felt that killing any political or business figure or anyone was even remotely “somewhat justified.” Ever.

This degradation of our society has been building for decades if not longer, so placing all the blame on Trump would be highly disingenuous. Republican Steve Scalise was nearly killed when a gunman opened fire at a congressional baseball game in 2017. In 2011, Democrat Gabby Giffords was shot along with 18 of her constituents — six of whom died. And let’s not forget that President Trump has faced two assassination attempts. You also have the execution of the United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, by Luigi Mangione, who is being hailed a hero by those on the left as I’m sure Kirk’s killer will be in short time.

All of it — in the name of politics. Or at least, that’s what we all assume. 

I've often chatted with a gentleman named Chris Bledsoe, author of UFO of God. Chris is a deeply religious man and a successful business owner from North Carolina who had a remarkable experience in 2007. After losing everything during the financial crisis and battling a debilitating chronic illness, Chris—along with his son and three co-workers—was involved in an unexplained event that can only be described as a UFO encounter.

While fishing along the banks of the Cape Fear River, Chris walked away from the group and, in a moment of desperation, cried out to God for help. Suddenly, a glowing UFO appeared. Whatever it was saved his life, curing him of his illness. He experienced four hours of missing time and returned to find his group terrified, fleeing the riverbank while being chased by several UFOs.

Chris’s story has attracted the attention of NASA, the CIA, numerous respected professors such as Hal Puthoff, and MUFON. He’s even been studied on the History Channel series Beyond Skinwalker Ranch.

Chris happens to believe much of what we are seeing - society tearing itself apart - is a direct result of humanity’s negativity and its mutual attraction to Satan. Now, far be if from me to think I know more than Chris but I’ve also heard Tom deLonge, the lead singer of Blink 182 and the architect of To The Stars Academy, say that part of the reason we are being lied to by our leaders regarding UAP is due to the fact that according to deLonge, they (interdimensional beings) are using us as a means of survival by eliciting negative emotions from us, especially fear. 

Delonge suggests that these beings have tampered with human DNA at some point in history by “unplugging” and altering parts of our genome, thereby limiting human consciousness and our ability to perceive other dimensions. The purpose of this genetic manipulation, he claims, is to keep humanity in a suppressed state—one in which we can be “fed” upon. These entities allegedly harvest intense emotions such as anger, hatred, and fear, to benefit their own survival, in a parasitic dynamic. Delonge compares this relationship to the way bacteria in the human gut microbiome live off us, though in this case, the benefit may be one-sided.

I know what you’re thinking: What in the Holy Hell, Joseph? Where are you going with this? Look, I’m as lost as the next person. If I had the answer, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops, as loud and as far as I could. That said, I know what I know, and I believe a lot of what we’re dealing with as a human race has little to do with our opinions on issues such as taxes or global warming. The idea that an external force—one that needs us as much as we need mitochondria—has been manipulating human behavior to trigger and amplify emotional responses, is a fringe theory, I admit. Some might even say it’s just a way to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our actions.

But like I said, I’m not claiming to have all the answers. The more I observe this irrational drive to literally destroy people we disagree with, the more I wonder if there might be larger forces at work behind life’s greatest mysteries. If this admittedly wild theory is true, we would have no control over it. We’d be powerless. And perhaps it’s because we’re beginning to catch on to this idea that the level of control being exerted is only increasing.

In no way am I trying to make hollow excuses for our behavior. We all need to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask tough questions. My hope is that because of these tragedies—and the focus they’ve created—we might try to tap into our better angels. When it comes to politics, to think any of us would want someone dead who disagrees with us is childlike at best and deeply psychotic at worst.

I hope DeLonge is wrong. I truly do. If he’s not, then what hope do we have as mere puppets? If the choice is between being mind-numbed by an outside force versus being influenced by Satan, it’s like the old saying: “caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.” Neither reality is ideal, but both require every ounce of strength to battle.

May we lean into and rely on our better angels to get us through this.

Superman (2025) Review

 

Anyone who knows me personally knows what a huge Superman fan I am—and always have been. I was born in 1974, a mere three years before the iconic portrayal of Big Blue by Christopher Reeve cemented, for my generation, who the Man of Steel was on the big screen. The tagline, “You’ll believe a man can fly,” brought movie magic front and center—the likes of which hadn’t been seen up to that point.

Today, of course, with CGI and artificial intelligence, you can make Grandma fly around the moon blindfolded in her muumuu using a free app on your phone. Kids today are spoiled by technology. We Gen X-ers, on the other hand, were spoiled with actual greatness.

I finally had the chance to see James Gunn’s Superman in theaters. The buzz leading up to the film was that it had a much lighter tone than Zack Snyder’s darker take starring Henry Cavill. As a longtime fan of the character—and of how he's evolved across TV and film—it’s always fascinating to see how Superman is adapted for modern audiences, often reflecting the current cultural climate. Gunn’s Superman fits that ever-evolving formula.

Replacing Cavill is David Corenswet, a somewhat lesser-known actor who, like Reeve, is a Juilliard alum. At first glance, I’ll admit I didn’t think Corenswet had the physicality Cavill brought to the role. On the surface, Cavill looked almost exactly like what you'd imagine Superman would (or should) look like. My only wish? That he had been a better, more well-rounded actor. I know that’s harsh, but it is what it is.

I get it—actors are sometimes hamstrung by the scripts they’re given. But great actors can elevate even the dullest material. While Cavill had the look of the Man of Steel, his performance never quite soared. Whether that was fully his fault or Snyder’s, I’ll leave for others to debate.

I never understood Snyder’s decision to strip away the classic duality between Clark Kent and Superman—the deliberate contrast we saw so well in Reeve’s portrayal. Clark’s bumbling, goofy demeanor was always meant to mask the confident Kryptonian within. I appreciated that Gunn brought that back with Corenswet’s performance. It humanizes the character in a way Cavill’s version never quite did—or was allowed to. Gunn even dials Superman’s powers down a notch to make him more relatable. In fact, Superman gets his ass handed to him more than once in this movie—but like Rocky Balboa, he just keeps getting back up.

The ultimate goodness that is Superman is juxtaposed by the diabolically evil Lex Luthor, played by Nicholas Hoult. Hoult gives us the best version of Lex since Michael Rosenbaum’s performance on Smallville. He wasn’t as campy as Hackman or as sullen as Spacey—and I won’t even talk about Jesse Eisenberg’s Ritalin-infused Luthor. Hoult nailed it. One scene, where he plays Russian Roulette using a prisoner, shows just how dark Gunn is willing to get.

Gunn also puts his signature touch on the film, incorporating popular music into the score and sprinkling modern vernacular throughout the dialogue. It was fun—albeit a little corny—to hear Superman drop a few “darns” here and there. But then again, Superman has always been the best kind of corny. Speaking of music: thank you, James Gunn, for at least using some of the iconic John Williams theme. Is it really a Superman film without hearing that at some point? Bravo.

This isn’t the neck-snapping Superman of Snyder’s grim universe. Gunn’s Superman enjoys doing good deeds. He’s not weighed down by self-doubt or existential angst—though maybe he should be a bit more discerning when it comes to dealing with nation-states on the brink of war. Either way, there’s joy in seeing this version of the character, where Cavill’s Superman always seemed reluctant and joyless, despite his godlike power. Does that mean Gunn won’t take his version of Superman down a darker road at some point? Who knows—but at least he didn’t start off like that.

I did have one issue with the story, and it involves Superman’s biological parents, Jor-El and Lara. I won’t spoil it here—but when you see the film, keep that subplot in mind and see if it hits you the way it hit me.

In the end, there’s room for all versions of Superman, and depending on your personal taste, you’ll either love this one—or you won’t. But it’s hard to deny that Gunn’s take is the closest we’ve ever come to bringing the comic book Superman fully to life on the big screen. If a comic could leap off the page, it would look a lot like this.

James Gunn didn’t just reboot Superman—he reminded us why we believed in him in the first place.

All in all, The Sector gives Superman a solid 8 out of 10.

I'm Tariffic, you're Tariffic, everyone is Tariffic!

Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been, an egghead macro or micro economist or a tenured member of a high falutin academy. Shocking, as it may seem. While I may opine on various topics, I don’t speak with a condescending aristocratic tone and I don’t wear a paisley printed ascot with a velvet dinner jacket. I’ve never been to a soiree and I don’t have a monthly subscription to the New York Times, The Atlantic or Esquire. I’m a regular dude. A Joe, if you will. I work a 9 to 5. I worry about my kid’s future. I worry about the bills and like many, I’m sick of taking it on the chin as the “little” guy routinely has for the past 50 years at least.

Where am I going with this you ask? Well, I was watching the news and heard that Amazon will be displaying the tariff cost as well as the price of the item you search for, and it got me thinking, which I admit can sometimes be a bad thing, what ever shall we do?!  

So what exactly is going on with all this tariff talk for starters? What’s a tariff? Why should we care? Is it a good or bad thing? Will the Mets maintain this level of dominance all season? All weighty questions, I know. Am I qualified to even talk about this? Ya damn skippy I am!

I say that because I took in a Joe Rogan podcast recently where he had Dave Smith go tet-a-tet with Douglas Murray. I’m not going to deep dive into that as you can watch it for yourself, but essentially Douglas Murray is a British commentator/critic, dare I say, an intellectual. Just ask him, he’ll tell ya. Dave Smith is a comedian, podcaster and an avowed Libertarian and someone I would consider, a regular dude. 

The Rogan podcast touched on many topics from the war with Israel and Hamas, to the war in Ukraine and to the past election in the US. All the while, the ever so smug Murray quite literally asks Smith, where he gets off having an opinion since he’s not an “expert” in anything. It was a true expose in elitism and quite hilarious but it really showed the world we live in today and why so many of the legacy media types are crumbling in front of our eyes because of their boundless and very self aware arrogance. 

Tariffs used to be the way this country made money to operate the Federal government. It was also used as a way to protect our industries from foreign competition which used very cheap labor to create goods to be sold to Americans. Sound familiar? As time went on, transportation became more advanced and products from around the world would come into the US from nations but levied with huge tariffs, making them less desirable. By 1913 the US transitioned to the Income Tax, and we no longer had to rely on Tariffs to bring in money to run the government. Tariffs became more of a tool in trade negotiations and not a necessity to keep the business of government running.

The concept of tariffs is simple as is the concept of “free trade”. But what is free trade? Well essentially, it’s zero tariffs by BOTH parties in a trade agreement. Take Britain for example. We would charge them zero in tariffs if they reciprocated. Has it ever happened? Nope. Right now Britain charges the US a 10% tariff which the Trump administration said they will reciprocate. Why is it that in Europe you can buy a Mercedes or a BMW but not a Ford or Chevy? You can certainly buy a Mercedes or a Beemer in the US. Why the double standard? Because many European countries (our allies by the way) have set it up that way and we in the US have just gone along with it like good little lemmings, for a very-long-time. 

I’m old enough to remember NAFTA, it was the North American “Free” Trade Agreement that was born in old man Bush’s presidency but was implemented in the Clinton presidency. It was supposed to make trade free between the US, Canada, and Mexico. How did that turn out for us? Again, I’m old enough to remember the 1992 Presidential election and Ross Perot. 

He ran as a third party candidate against old man Bush and Clinton. He foretold how NAFTA would end up for the US with his famous line, “that giant sucking sound” of US jobs going overseas. Factories fled to Mexico for cheap labor and lax environmental protections. This was all before the joys of Amazon, Temu and Shein, with their inferior made cheap products from China flooding the US market, acting like heroin to the US consumer. All of this, predicted by a silly looking and sounding Texas businessman, that both political parties in America didn’t take seriously and started to lampoon personally and eventually hate. Perot was definitely before his time and maybe not the best marketer for those ideas, wink wink. 

So here we are, at a major crossroad as to how we do business with other nations. If a nation like India, wants to charge the US a 52% tariff, why would we NOT reciprocate at the very least? What do we owe India and its workforce to allow them to do that to us? What do we get out of this arrangement, besides jobs that were here in the US, shipped over there for obvious reasons. Have you tried to speak to customer service for ANY major company you do business with? It’s a simple matter of fairness really. And to those who are hell bent at opposing it, ironically and historically, many of them used to be on the side of fairness, the “little” guy and the use of tariffs. Over time, now they’ve become the power elite, having tasted the succulent fruit of greed, enjoying the lavishes that come with it. My old man used to say, money will make good Democrats and Republicans sell their own mother’s to stay in power and keep the gravy train going. 

It’s time we put on our big boy and big girl pants and do what's right for the American worker for a change and not feed the machine and the parasites that run it.  We’ve been taken advantage of because we’ve allowed it.  It’s time to body check these nations and our political and business leaders, ala Claude Lemeiux, for better or worse, before it’s too late. 

***UPDATE***

Amazon decided NOT to play games their Beijing masters wanted by displaying the tariff alongside the price of an item. You see, body checks do work.