To crack open this nostalgic Midwestern beer is to drink in over a century of heritage. It’s more than just a cold one; it’s a storied tradition.
Food Republic – Restaurants, Reviews, Recipes, Cooking Tips
Day: March 24, 2026
Reading Time: 3 minutes
When Kendra Caldwell was arrested on child endangerment charges last week, her mother-in-law, Michelle Duggar, bailed her out of jail just a few hours later.
And it seems that on the way home, Michelle was followed by some members of the press, which makes sense, as her son, Joseph Duggar, was arrested earlier in the week.
This is turning into another massive Duggar scandal, but rather than tend to the problems within her own family, Michelle would apparently rather lash out at the media.
Yes, an independent journalist posted a TikTok in which Michelle approaches his car with her phone out and proceeds to absolutely lose her sh-t.
“You cannot be here!” Michelle can be heard screaming at the man, who uses the TikTok handle Shabba.
“You are interfering with children Shame on you!”
When the man rather calmly points out that Joseph and Kendra were both arrested for “interfering” with children, Michelle becomes even more upset.
“None of your business!” she shouts, still recording the altercation with her phone, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.
The photographer (who mistakenly thought that Kendra was Michelle’s offspring while Joe was her son-in-law) told Michelle that Joseph “was doing something way worse.”
“NO!” Michelle yells back. “You don’t have the right to be here!”
The man does his journalistic duty by asking what Joseph and Kendra have been up to, and this really sets Michelle off.
“You will go! You will not ask me anything! You will have to talk to someone else!” Michelle says. “Shame on you!”
According to The Ashley’s Reality Roundup, Shabba stated in a comment that he was on a public road at the time of the altercation.
So Michelle didn’t really have the authority to tell the man to keep moving.
Whatever the case, the activities of some paparazzi should be the least of the matriarch’s concerns these days.
She may have been able to bail Kendra out of jail, but it seems that Joseph is still behind bars.
Kendra was charged with child endangerment and false imprisonment, reportedly for locking her kids inside their bedrooms.
Joe is facing much more serious charges, including lewd and lascivious behavior– molestation of a victim less than 12 years old, as well as a charge of lewd and lascivious behavior conducted by a person 18 years or older.
The charges stem from a recent “forensic interview,” in which the alleged victim, now 14, claimed that Joe molested her during a trip to Florida in 2020.
This, of course, is not the first time that the Duggars have been embroiled in a child molestation scandal.
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Michelle Duggar Flips Out on Paparazzi After Bailing Kendra Caldwell Out of Jail: Watch was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
A sheen of oil spreads into Prince William Sound from the grounded Exxon Valdez tanker on March 24, 1989. In the decades since the spill, which was the nation’s worst until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, regulators and scientists have monitored the oil that remains buried on some of the beaches. (Photo provided by the U.S. Coast Guard)
Thirty-seven years ago the Exxon Valdez tanker grounded in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil in what was for decades the nation’s worst oil spill. Now, state environmental officials are proposing to remove some of the spill sites from a list of polluted waters.
Of the more than 1,300 miles of coastline fouled by the spill, there are now 11 sites where lingering oil is too degraded, too deeply embedded and too immobile to pose any more water quality problems, according to analysis performed for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
The department is proposing to remove “impaired” designations from 11 spill-affected sites in its 2026 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, a tally required under the federal Clean Water Act.
Among the sites that may be reclassified are some that became famous for the thick coating of spilled oil they received in the immediate aftermath of the tanker’s grounding. They include Sleepy Bay on Latouche Island and Bay of Isles and Herring Bay on Knight Island.
Impaired water body lists, which identify sites that fail to meet water quality standards, are required by federal law of all states every two years.
For Alaska, the assessment of whether specific locations affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill should still be on the list depends on whether they met state and federal water quality standards, according to the DEC.
“Just as water near a permitted sewage outfall may have pollutants present but remain in ‘attainment’ because it meets strict safety and environmental thresholds, some EVOS beaches may still contain traces of lingering oil while now meeting the legal standards for water quality,” a department statement said.
The draft proposes moving the 11 sites from Category 4b, used for sites that are impaired but have recovery plans in place, to Category 2, used for sites where water quality standards have been attained for at least one designated use.
The state agency’s draft 2026 list also contains another change: a consolidation of sites with lingering oil.
Two years ago, the state’s impaired water body list identified 36 such sites. As of now, the department has merged some of those, leaving a total of 16 sites.
Five of those sites are still considered impaired at the Category 4 level, under the draft list. Those sites are on Smith Island, Knight Island, Eleanor Island and Green Island, and altogether they account for a little under 16 miles of coastline, according to the DEC.
The lingering oil is a reminder of the environmental damage wreaked by the Exxon Valdez disaster and the difficulties encountered in the response to it.
Despite a massive cleanup effort, only about 10% of the spilled oil that fouled waters and beaches was ever recovered, according to the DEC.
Lingering oil posed environmental problems for several years after that, according to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the federal and state organization that administers the funds paid by Exxon to settle government damage claims. Lingering oil leaching out from beach sites slowed the recovery of some species for more than two decades, including sea otters, and some research indicates that long-term impacts from lingering oil were as bad or worse than the initial acute impacts of the spill, according to the trustee council.
As of 2007, after years of weathering and degradation, an estimated 23,000 gallons of spilled oil remained on the beaches. That is about 0.2% of the original spill volume, according to the trustee council. A follow-up survey in 2015 revealed no significant change in that amount, according to the council.
Alaska’s draft 2026 impaired water body list is subject to public review, with comments accepted through April 6. After comments are analyzed, a final list will be produced and sent to the Environmental Protection Agency, DEC said.
The Exxon Valdez sites make up just part of the state’s draft impaired water body list, which includes numerous recommendations for category changes. Impaired water bodies have been identified in places stretching from Interior Alaska to the Aleutians and the southern tip of Southeast Alaska.
Some of those sites have been designated as Category 5, used for water bodies with the worst pollution problems. There were 20 such sites on DEC’s 2024 list, with fecal coliform affecting 13 of them.
The draft 2026 list proposes moving two of those sites, the Katlian River near Sitka and the Little Susitna River in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, to Category 2 after there were improvements in their turbidity measurements. The draft also proposes moving a different site, Ketchikan Creek, to Category 5 because of fecal coliform problems.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and there are plenty of photos of Trump that depict the reality of hair loss for him and men his age.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
This fast food chain doesn’t keep microwaves or freezers in any of its stores, which means everything – from the produce to the beef – is always fresh.
Food Republic – Restaurants, Reviews, Recipes, Cooking Tips
Johnson says that once Kid Rock explained why he wanted to record a version of the song, he was immediately sold. Continue reading…The Boot – Country Music News, Music Videos and Songs
Johnson says that once Kid Rock explained why he wanted to record a version of the song, he was immediately sold. Continue reading…Country Music News – Taste of Country
Last year was a big one for Coco Jones, and this one is shaping up to be huge. After wowing audiences with her performance at Super Bowl LX last month, the R&B singer and actress has released “LUVAGIRL,” her first new studio recording of 2026.
Produced by Shae Jacobs, “LUVAGIRL” is powered by thunderous drums and regal brass, calling back to classic moments in early 2000s R&B as it creates a blustery atmosphere for Jones’ declaration of love. “Strangers think we’re straight out of a movie/ Way you look at me and move me,” Jones sings. “Baby, I’m a new me/ And I think I like the way that it’s hittin’.”
“LUVAGIRL” arrives with a music video that lives up to the song’s flashy sound. In the clip, Jones portrays a number of different characters, each a different type of “luvagirl.” She spelled out the different modes in an Instagram post. The lady who’s “FULL OF ‘IT’” calls for “romance; with receipts. She believes in love; she still needs consistency,” while the “SUPER FLIRT” is “soft; with intent. Feminine is the weapon; sweetness is chosen.” Jones stars in a stylized poster for each of the eight archetypes too.
Click to load video
The release of “LUVAGIRL” follows Jones’ acclaimed appearance at the Super Bowl in Santa Clara, where she sang “Lift Every Voice And Sing” before the big game. A recording of her performance is available to stream now.
Last year, Jones released her debut album Why Not More? The project featured adult R&B smash hits “Here We Go (Uh Oh)” and “Taste,” cementing her place among the brightest young stars in music today. A few months after the album’s release, she shared some personal news to go along with her professional success, announcing her engagement to NBA star Donovan Mitchell after two years of dating.
Shop Coco Jones’ music on vinyl and CD here.
Discover more about the world’s greatest R&B artists | uDiscover Music
With the war in Iran a topic on everyone’s lips, you might have noticed an inconsistency in the way that nation’s name is said, varying between a more native-like “Ih-ron” pronunciation and a more Americanized “Ih-ran” one.
An everyday listener might just chalk this up as being the result of regional differences or the version we learned growing up, like the alternate ways Americans have of saying “data” or “roof.”
But as a linguist who studies what our accents reveal about our histories and social identities, I know that the way we pronounce things often gives off clues about who we are and what we believe in.
That appears to be the case with these two distinct pronunciations.
The sound of politics
It’s probably not a big surprise to learn that listeners often hear certain words or accents as indicating someone’s political inclinations.
That’s because people are primed to notice patterns that mark group membership – be it a style of clothes or pronouncing “fire” more like “far.” Once they notice these patterns, people then tend to assign whatever traits are believed to characterize that group to the sounds of their speech.
For instance, researchers examined how people perceived potential political candidates with a Southern vs. non-Southern American accent. They wrote in 2018 that they discovered listeners perceived Southern-sounding politicians as more likely to be conservative and to hold right-leaning views on issues such as gun rights and abortion. All that from hearing someone pronounce “pin” like “pen” or say “bah bah” for “bye.”
This suggests that even a small difference in the way a vowel is pronounced can suggest a lot more about political ideology than you might imagine, even if that suggestion is not always accurate.
Nationalism and names
Going back to the question of what drives variation in the pronunciation of Iran, a linguistic study examining politics and pronunciation during the Iraq War offers some insight.
In analyzing 2007 House of Representatives debates about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, linguists found that a congress member’s political party affiliation was the strongest predictor of how the “a” vowel in Iraq was pronounced.
Republicans preferred the anglicized short “a” pronunciation closer to “ear-RACK,” while Democrats preferred a more “ah”-like one, as in “ear-ROCK.” The authors suggest that the Democratic preference, approximating a more native pronunciation, was motivated by greater multicultural sensitivity.
The pronunciation of the “i” vowel also exhibited a more anglicized option, as in “EYE-rack/rock,” which was also examined. Unlike the “a” vowel, a more “eye”-like pronunciation by itself did not significantly correlate with partisanship.
Two later studies, in 2011 and 2018, of everyday speakers who were asked to pronounce Iraq in nonpolitical contexts discovered no significant difference by political affiliation. The biggest predictor favoring an “ear-ROCK” pronunciation was that a person spoke multiple languages, as the “ah” vowel sound is more frequent in languages commonly spoken in the U.S., such as Spanish, French and Italian.
Despite not directly patterning with politics, when people in the 2018 study were questioned explicitly about how saying “ear-RACK” or “ear-ROCK” tied into political views, the “ah” pronunciation of the vowel was indeed heard as linked with liberalism, an association particularly strong for those who used “ah” and were liberal themselves.
This suggests that people might have picked up on this pattern from hearing politicians. They were aware of the fact that this vowel variation had become, in relevant contexts, symbolic of liberal vs. conservative stances.
Respect and pronunciation
In looking more generally at the pronunciation of borrowed words written with the letter “a,” like that of “pasta” or “tobacco,” linguist Charles Boberg suggests that Americans generally follow two possible paths, either pronouncing it with the short “a” like in “bat” or with the “ah” like in “father.”
Boberg suggests that attitudinal factors play a role in the choice between the two. Since many Americans associate the “ah” pronunciation with more education and sophistication, given its connection to upper-crust British use in words like “bath” or “aunt,” there has been an increasing tendency for Americans to use “ah” in words borrowed since World War II, as with “origami” or “nacho.”
But in looking at variability in the pronunciation of Iraq, other linguists hypothesized that the “ah” vowel is only heard as more sophisticated when a source language is held in high esteem – as with the British-derived “ah” in “aunt” – or when those speaking foreign languages are well regarded.
In contrast, when there is less respect for a people or a place, the choice of an Americanized vowel rather than the more accurate native one might be preferred. This attitude difference may well explain much of the variation in politicians’ pronunciation of Iraq – and possibly Iran.
Not surprisingly, in their study of congressional variation in pronunciation of Iraq, these researchers found that, beyond party affiliation, the politician’s war stance – for or against sending additional troops – was a significant determinant of which vowel was used. If they used the “ear-RACK” pronunciation, they were more likely to favor sending more troops to the country.
Trump and ‘I-ran’
While there is, as of yet, no similar study comparing politicians and their pronunciation of Iran, it is interesting to note that both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance say the name in the more anglicized fashion, using the same vowel as in “ear-RACK” – that is, as “Ih-RAN” not “Ih-RON.”
Considering the highly contested nature of this war, this presidential preference for the anglicized version of the name may be driven by a similar politicized positioning to that found for the pronunciation of Iraq. Trump and Vance may be underscoring their “pro-America” focus by creating a linguistic and ideological distance with the named nation and its speakers.
A similar linguistic contrast was made during the Vietnam War, when “VietNAM” was commonly pronounced as having the same short “a” sound as in “bat,” including from the lips of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Now, years later, the “VietNOM” pronunciation dominates, and the “NAM” version is virtually absent in those born in more recent eras.
In the same way, Americans might eventually find a linguistic middle ground in the current pronunciation debate over Iran. But it might be a while before peace in the Middle East prevails long enough to give the next generation a linguistic clean slate.
Valerie M. Fridland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Three weeks into the U.S. war with Iran, it seems increasingly evident that President Donald Trump and his administration miscalculated how Iran would respond to attacks.
Besides appearing unprepared by the escalation of war, the president has offered contradictory statements on the U.S. rationale for bombing Iran, including that Iranian missiles could “soon” rain down on American cities.
The administration’s inconsistent rationale for waging war was laid bare on March 18, 2026, when Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and declined to say whether her agency had made an estimate of if and when Iran would threaten the U.S. mainland.
“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard said.
The statement was especially odd given that the briefing’s subject was the U.S. intelligence community’s latest global threat assessment. It’s clear to me that neither Gabbard nor other members of the intelligence community were part of Trump’s decision-making about going to war.
Besides serving as chair of the National Intelligence Council in the Barack Obama administration, I was a staff member of the National Security Council in the Jimmy Carter administration. I know that this apparent lack of a coordinated policy on Iran is a far cry from the war preparation and planning done during previous presidential administrations.
National Security Council
Typically, the National Security Council, which consists of the Cabinet secretaries of the national security agencies, does its work through its committees, including the Deputies Committee, which is made up of the top deputies in those departments. The Deputies Committee reviews plans and assesses options, usually presenting a recommendation to the principals, including the president.
In that sense, the National Security Council is seen within an administration as the honest broker, especially in balancing the roles of the two main foreign affairs departments: the State Department and the Defense Department.
To be sure, different administrations have used the National Security Council in different ways.
President Dwight Eisenhower created the modern National Security Council. His was an elaborate structure, with groups for both assessing options and overseeing implementation. It reflected his wartime experience, with careful staffing from a general staff whose responsibilities ranged from operations and logistics to intelligence and plans.
Other administrations have favored less formal arrangements. John F. Kennedy, for instance, kept discussions with the National Security Council secret during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. But all the National Security Council stakeholders were represented, and Kennedy reached out to consult outside expertise on the Soviet Union.
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool
Lyndon Johnson made Tuesday lunches his forum for debating decisions about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Beginning with just his secretaries of state and defense, the lunches became a National Security Council meeting but in less formal circumstances. The CIA director, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the press secretary were later added to the group.
In other administrations at war, including the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations in Iraq, the Deputies Committees would meet daily to assess progress and review options for what came next.
In the Obama administration, the National Intelligence Council I chaired supplied the intelligence support to the Deputies Committee. We provided a steady stream of intelligence assessments across various subjects. Those included pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring in the 2010s to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
The intelligence assessments provided the information – about where wars stood and what may come next – used for discussion among the deputies. They were discussions informed by experts on the Deputies Committee and from staff on the National Security Council who specialized in the region or military affairs.
This was nowhere better illustrated than in negotiating the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran. The deal required bringing together experts on Iran and regional dynamics in the Middle East with experts on nuclear fuel cycles and the making of nuclear weapons.
Hardly seen
The Trump administration cut the National Security Council staff in half in May 2025, to around 150. The plan was to streamline and restructure national intelligence under Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Since White Houses always want to pretend they are cheaper than they are, most staff with the National Security Council are seconded – or loaned for free – from one of the agencies. The process saves the White House money. But it also provides it with invaluable in-house expertise and exposes those seconded officials to presidential policymaking.
A friend and colleague who served as under secretary of defense quipped that every time he saw a State Department counterpart coming to a Deputies Committee meeting, he knew what was coming in substance: a request for a military solution to a geopolitical problem.
His stock answer: “Yes, we can do that, but it’ll require 100,000 soldiers and cost US$10 billion.” That answer was his quip, but the Deputies Committee provided a forum for arguing about the merits of the case.
The Trump administration in January 2025 outlined the National Security Council structure in familiar terms. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and director of national intelligence, both a regular presence in debates in previous administrations, were made situational rather than regular members. They would attend as needed, not automatically.
Daniel Torok/The White House via AP
But the National Security Council has hardly been seen since, unlike Trump’s Cabinet, which gathers occasionally at meetings that often begin with Cabinet members lavishing praise on the president.
Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Radio asked Trump on March 13, 2026, about that inner circle.
“In your Cabinet with the vice president, secretary of state, what is it like, what are the dynamics when you have a big decision like Iran or Venezuela?” Kilmeade asked. “Are people speaking up and speaking their minds?”
Trump’s answer spoke volumes.
“They do,” the president said. “I let them speak their mind, and they do. And we have some differences, but they, they never end up being much. I convince them all to, let’s do it my way.”
Perhaps this casual approach to national security from the Trump administration should not surprise Americans after “Signalgate” – when administration officials in 2025 used the messaging app Signal rather than secure government modes to discuss U.S. military strikes on Yemen and inadvertently included a journalist in the communications.
But when lives are at stake, not to mention Americans’ pocketbooks and the global economy, I think the nation deserves better. Conducting a war requires a hard-headed process for assessing progress and evaluating next steps. In other administrations, the National Security Council would have provided that.
Gregory F. Treverton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Politics + Society – The Conversation