I was promoted a few weeks ago, which was great. I got a lot of nice notes from friends, family, customers, partners, and random strangers, which was exciting.
But it wasn’t long until a note came in saying, “Everyone knows you got the position because you’re a girl.” In spite of having a great week at a great company with great people whom I love, that still stung, because it’s not the first time I’ve heard it.
Every woman who works in tech — heck, likely every woman on Earth — hears “because you’re a girl” dozens, if not thousands, of times in her life.
It starts young, of course:
Why can’t I join that team? Because you’re a girl.
Why can’t I study physics? Because you’re a girl.
Then, the comments age with you.
Why can’t I manage that project? Because you’re a girl.
Why can’t I join that group? Because you’re a girl.
And after you’ve reached any level of attainment in a profession you love, the comments are used to minimize your success.
Why did you get that award? Because you’re a girl.
Why were you chosen to participate in that class? Because you’re a girl.
Like so many women before me, I have shaken off the comment.
I’ve gotten angry. I’ve gotten sad. I’ve doubted myself and my abilities. I’ve ignored it entirely. I’ve challenged it. I’ve recruited support from men and women I respect. Yet every time it stays there in the back of my mind, screaming for attention after every failure or setback.
But today is the day I’ve decided to change that.
I did, in fact, get the job because I’m a girl.
A girl who was called “bossy” growing up.
A girl who wasn’t afraid to play with the boys.
A girl who didn’t hesitate to raise her hand if she knew the answer.
A girl who stood up for other kids.
A girl who was always the first one to volleyball practice and the last to leave.
A girl who was told she was too assertive and aggressive to advance in her career.
A girl who went to MIT anyway.
A girl who asked her company to do more on diversity and inclusion and won’t stop pushing until it’s truly remarkable.
A girl who has made big mistakes, both personal and professional.
A girl who swings for the fences even when no one is watching.
A girl who puts in hours when other people are asleep
A girl who tells young girls how smart and strong they are.
A girl who hates to lose.
And a girl who won’t stand silently while people still use “because you’re a girl” as any limitation for girls who want to grow, challenge the status quo, and be something, anything, greater than society tells them they could or should.
So yeah. I guess you could say I got my job because I’m a girl, but not for any of the reasons you might think.
This story first appeared on the author’s Medium and is reprinted here with permission.
The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn’t have to be.
People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.
Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn’t something we’d choose—and we’d hope others wouldn’t choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.
It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here’s why.
There’s far too much gray area to legislate.
No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells” should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.
I personally believe life begins at conception, but that’s my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.”
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.
Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I’m not okay with that.
One reason I don’t support banning abortion is because I’ve seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.
I’ve heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.
I’ve heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.
I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman’s medical decisions, and I don’t think the government should either.
Most people’s anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don’t believe that anyone’s religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!” when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)
I also don’t want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I’d never have to make, but wouldn’t want banned. I don’t understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.
And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being’s creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother’s body. And while I don’t think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn’t something the government should be in the business of doing.
As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God’s hands.
Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn’t the way to go.
The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.
Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.
Outlawing abortion doesn’t stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.
At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that’s where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can’t co-exist in the real world.
Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that’s where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.
Nearly 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty. That’s more than one in ten Americans—and the percent is even higher for children.
If you’re not up on the current numbers, the federal poverty line is $12,760 for an individuals and $26,200 for a family of four. If those annual incomes sound abysmally low, it’s because they are. And incredibly, the Trump administration has proposed lowering the poverty line further, which would make more poor Americans ineligible for needed assistance.
However, debates over the poverty line don’t even capture the full extent of Americans struggling to make ends meet. For many people, living above the poverty line is actually worse. These are the folks who make too much to qualify for aid programs but not enough to actually get by—a situation millions of working American families find themselves stuck in.
Amy Jo Hutchison is a single mother of two living in West Virginia, and a community organizer for West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families and Our Future West Virginia. She has also lived in poverty and been part of the working poor herself. In an impassioned speech, she spoke to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about what poverty really looks like for working families—and even called out Congress for being completely out of touch with what it takes for a family to live on while they’re spending $40,000 a year on office furniture.
Watch Hutchison’s testimony here (transcript included below):
Ms. Hutchison Testimony on Proposed Changes to the Poverty Line Calculation
“I’m here to help you better understand poverty because poverty is my lived experience. And I’m also here to acknowledge the biased beliefs that poor people are lazy and the poverty is their fault. But how do I make you understand things like working full-time for $10 an hour is only about $19,000 a year, even though it’s well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?
I want to tell you about a single mom I met who was working at a gas station. She was promoted to manager within 30 days. She had to report her new income the DHHR within 60 days. Her rent bumped from $475 to $950 a month, she lost her SNAP benefits and her family’s health insurance, so she did what poor people are forced to do all the time. She resigned her promotion and went back to working part-time, just so she and her family could survive.
Another single mom I know encouraged her kids to get jobs. For her DHHR review she had to claim their income as well. She lost her SNAP benefits and her insurance, so she weaned herself off of her blood pressure medicines because she—working full-time in a bank and part-time at a shop on the weekends—couldn’t afford to buy them. Eventually the girls quit their jobs because their part-time fast food income was literally killing their mother.
You see the thing is children aren’t going to escape poverty as long as they’re relying on a head of household who is poor. Poverty rolls off the backs of parents, right onto the shoulders of our children, despite how hard we try.
I can tell you about my own with food insecurity the nights I went to bed hungry so my kids could have seconds, and I was employed full time as a Head Start teacher. I can tell you about being above the poverty guideline, nursing my gallbladder with essential oils and prayer, chewing on cloves and eating ibuprofen like they’re Tic Tacs because I don’t have health insurance and I can’t afford a dentist. I have two jobs and a bachelor’s degree, and I struggle to make ends meet.
The federal poverty guidelines say that I’m not poor, but I cashed in a jar full of change the other night so my daughter could attend a high school band competition with her band. I can’t go grocery shopping without a calculator. I had to decide which bills not to pay to be here in this room today. Believe me, I’ve pulled myself up by the bootstraps so many damn times that I’ve ripped them off.
The current poverty guidelines are ridiculously out of touch. The poverty line for a family of three is $21,720. Where I live, because of the oil and gas boom, a 3-bedroom home runs for $1,200 a month. So if I made $22,000 a year, which could disqualify me from assistance, I would have $8000 left to raise two children and myself on. And yet the poverty guidelines wouldn’t classify me as poor.
I Googled ‘congressman salary’ the other day and according to Senate gov the salary for Senators representatives and delegates is $174,000 a year so a year of work for you is the equivalent of almost four years of work for me. I’m $24,000 above the federal poverty guidelines definition of poor. It would take nine people working full-time for a year at $10 an hour to match y’all’s salary. I also read that each senator has authorized $40,000 dollars for state office furniture and furnishings, and this amount is increased each year to reflect inflation.
That $40,000 a year for furniture is $360 more than the federal poverty guidelines for a family of seven, and yet here I am begging you on behalf of the 15 million children living in poverty in the United States—on behalf of the one in three kids under the age of five and nearly 100,000 children in my state of West Virginia living in poverty—to not change anything about these federal poverty guidelines until you can make them relevant and reflect what poverty really looks like today.
You have a $40,000 dollar furniture allotment. West Virginia has a median income of $43,000 and some change. People are working full-time and are hungry. Kids are about to be kicked off the free and reduced lunch rolls because of changes y’all want to make to SNAP, even though 62 percent of West Virginia SNAP recipients are families with children—the very same children who cannot take a part-time job because their parents will die without insurance. People are working full-time in this country for very little money.
They’re not poor enough to get help. They don’t make enough to get by. They’re working while their rationing their insulin and their skipping their meds because they can’t afford food and healthcare at the same time.
So shame on you. Shame on you, and shame on me, and shame on each and every one of us who haven’t rattled the windows of these buildings with cries of outrage at a government that thinks their office furniture is worthy of $40,000 a year and families and children aren’t.
I’m not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I’m asking you to see past it. There are 46 million Americans living in poverty doing the best they know how with what they have and we, in defense of children and families, cannot accept anything less from our very own government.”
In addition to Hutchison’s testimony, a coalition of 26 patient organizations, including the American Cancer Society Action Network, American Heart Association, and United Way, wrote a joint letter opposing the proposed lowering of the poverty line, stating:
“The current Official Poverty Measure (OPM) is based on an old formula that already does not fully capture those living in poverty and does not accurately reflect basic household expenses for families, including by underestimating child care and housing expenses. The proposed changes to the inflation calculation would reduce the annual adjustments to the poverty measure and therefore may exacerbate existing weaknesses, putting vulnerable Americans – including those with serious and chronic diseases – at great risk. Further lowering the poverty line would also give policymakers and the public less credible information about the number and characteristics of Americans living in poverty.”
The availability of bourbon — or any spirit for that matter — can sometimes be a fickle beast. There are bottles of bourbon (sometimes amazing stuff) that sit on every shelf around the country. Then there are bottles of bourbon that you’ll just never see on liquor store shelves. That doesn’t mean that those bottles aren’t “available,” strictly speaking. They’re out there, just not in the first places you’d think to look.
In fact, I think of myself like the Walter Sobchak of the whiskey world. But instead of severed toes, I can get you any bottle, dude. For a price.
Today, we’re pivoting away from the rare and high-end and toward the “easy to find.” For this blind tasting, I’m focusing on bottles that are on shelves nationwide for a fair retail price. To be very clear, this isn’t necessarily about cheap or “affordable” bourbon either. This is about what’s actually available on the shelf (pretty much) universally. That means that I’m grabbing a mix of small-batch bourbons, bottled in bonds, and single barrels. And since we’re talking about nationally available bourbons, we’re talking about whiskeys made in Kentucky and Tennessee, since the lion’s share of American whiskeys (especially the widely-distributed expressions) are made in those two states.
Four Roses Small Batch Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Evan Williams Bottled-In-Bond Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Jim Beam Single Barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
George Dickel Bourbon Whisky Handcrafted Small Batch Aged 8 Years
Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey
Russell’s Reserve Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Single Barrel
After the blind tasting (poured by my ever-patient lady), I’m going to rank these bourbons based on taste alone. This is simply about what tastes the best so let’s dive right in and find the best bourbon for you to buy.
Also Read: The Top 5 UPROXX Bourbon Posts Of The Last Six Months
Nose: The nose on this is very fruity with a mix of bruised peach, red berries (almost like in a cream soda), and apple wood next to a plate of waffles with brown butter and a good pour of maple syrup that leads to a hint of cotton candy.
Palate: The sweetness ebbs on the palate as vanilla frosting leads to grilled peaches with a crack of black pepper next to singed marshmallows.
Finish: The end is plummy and full of rich toffee next to a dash of cedar bark and vanilla tobacco.
Initial Thoughts:
This is great bourbon. I can see sipping this easily. It’s deep, nuanced, and has a nice warmth at the end.
Taste 2
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: There’s a light sense of rickhouse wood beams next to that mild taco seasoning on the nose with caramel apples, vanilla ice cream scoops, and a hint of fresh mint with a sweet/spicy edge.
Palate: The palate opens with a seriously smooth vanilla base with some winter spice (especially cinnamon and allspice) next to a hint of grain and apple pie filling.
Finish: The end leans towards the woodiness with a hint of broom bristle and minty tobacco lead undercut by that smooth vanilla.
Initial Thoughts:
This is another really nice bourbon pour. I love the depth and feel of walking through an old rickhouse with a glass of whiskey in my hand.
Taste 3
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: The nose on this feels classic with a bold sense of rich vanilla pods, cinnamon sharpness, buttered and salted popcorn, and a good dose of cherry syrup with a hint of cotton candy.
Palate: The palate mixes almond, orange, and vanilla into cinnamon sticky buns with a hint of sour cherry soda that leads to a nice Kentucky hug on the mid-palate.
Finish: That warm hug fades toward black cherry root beer, old leather boots, porch wicker, and a sense of dried cherry/cinnamon tobacco packed into an old pine box.
Initial Thoughts:
This is pretty good too but a little all over the place. This feels like it was made for cocktails. It’s just an innate sense.
Taste 4
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: There’s a welcoming aroma of butterscotch, blackberry, toffee, and fresh honey next to a real sense of pitchy, dry firewood.
Palate: The taste drills down on those notes as the sweet marzipan becomes more choco-hazelnut, the berries become increasingly dried and apple-y, the toffee becomes almost burnt, and the wood softens to a cedar bark.
Finish: A rich spicy and chewy tobacco arrives late as the vanilla gets super creamy and the fruit and honey combine on the slow fade.
Initial Thoughts:
This is deep and pretty delicious overall. The butterscotch note with a berry vibe is prominent and very enticing.
Taste 5
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: Soft and sweet apple and cherry woods greet with a good dose of sour red berries dusted with brown winter spices, especially clove and nutmeg.
Palate: The palate leans into soft and salted caramel with a hint of those berries underneath while the spices get woodier and a thin line of green sweetgrass sneaks in.
Finish: The finish is silky and boils down to blackberry jam with a good dose of winter spice, old wood, and a hint of vanilla tobacco.
Initial Thoughts:
The nose is very light but this finished strong. If I was being super critical, I’d call that slightly unbalanced. That said, this ended so strongly, I can forgive the light nose.
Taste 6
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: There’s a lovely nose at play with soft taco mix spice next to creamy vanilla, caramel-dipped cherries, a hint of pear skins, and plenty of nutmeg.
Palate: The palate has a minor note of cornbread muffins next to cherry-vanilla tobacco with a dash of leather and toffee.
Finish: The end leans into some fresh gingerbread with a vanilla frosting next to hints of pear candy cut with cinnamon and nutmeg.
Initial Thoughts:
This is really good classic bourbon. It’s not overdone or overpowering but it gets the job done.
Taste 7
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: The nose opens with classic notes of vanilla sheet cake, salted caramel, wintry mulled wine spices, and a sense of cherry pie in a lard crust next to a hint of dried corn husk, old broom bristle, and dark chocolate pipe tobacco.
Palate: The palate layers in floral honey and orange zest next to sticky toffee pudding, old leather, and cherry tobacco layered with the dark chocolate with this lingering sense of coconut cream pie lurking somewhere in the background.
Finish: The finish leans into more woody winter spices (especially cinnamon bark and nutmeg) with rich toffee and cherry-chocolate tobacco braided with dry sweetgrass and cedar bark.
Initial Thoughts:
Damn, this is excellent too. The beginning, middle, and end are all bold yet refined.
Taste 8
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: The nose opens with creamy vanilla next to spiced tobacco with plenty of apple pie vibe and winter spices with a butter underbelly.
Palate: The palate has a light bran muffin with a molasses vibe next to vanilla/nougat wafers that then lead to peach skins and gingerbread.
Finish: The end leans into the nutty chocolate and vanilla wafer with a touch of orange zest, marzipan, and mint tobacco with a hint of garden-store earthiness.
Initial Thoughts:
This was fine. It’s clearly something from Tennessee thanks to the vanilla wafers (think Necco Wafers) and the earthy close.
Taste 9
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: Buttery banana bread with walnuts and raisins (with a hint of the cardboard box they came in) next to bright red cherry and fresh tart apples dominate the nose with a light hint of old cinnamon powder next to the faintest hint of chewing tobacco.
Palate: The palate is thin, there’s no getting around that thanks to the proofing water. But it also presents as a lush banana milkshake cut with fresh vanilla and dusted with nutmeg and plenty of apple and cherry pie with very mild oakiness.
Finish: The proofing water amps up on the finish as the flavor washes out, leaving you with a sense of an empty apple pin tin, hints of banana bread, and an echo of cherry pipe tobacco.
Initial Thoughts:
This starts so strong but then sort of peters out by the end. That leads me to believe it’s a mixing bourbon. Oh, and it’s also very obviously Jack Daniel’s thanks to that bold fruitiness from top to bottom.
Taste 10
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Nose: Vanilla cream spiked with orange oils and sprinkled with toasted coconut mingle with spicy oak and buttery cake on the nose with an underpinning of winter spices by way of a sour mulled wine.
Palate: The palate opens with easy notes of marzipan, subtle dried roses, vanilla pods, more winter spices, and singed cherry bark.
Finish: The end arrives with a sense of Almond Joy next to cherry tobacco dipped in chili-infused dark chocolate with a flake of salt and a pinch of cedar dust and old leather saddles.
Initial Thoughts:
This has an excellent nose that carries the profile to a wonderful finish. This is a prime sipper.
Part 2 — The Bourbon Ranking
Zach Johnston
10. George Dickel Bourbon Whisky Handcrafted Small Batch Aged 8 Years — Taste 8
The whisky in the bottle is the same Dickel Tennessee whiskey but pulled from barrels that leaned more into classic bourbon flavor notes instead of Dickel’s iconic Tennessee whisky notes. The barrels are a minimum of eight years old before they’re vatted. The whiskey is then cut down to a manageable 90-proof and bottled.
Bottom Line:
This is perfectly fine bourbon. That earthiness on the finish is going to be an acquired taste for some (and may even remind some drinkers of a rye). In the end, I’d mix this into cocktails.
9. Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey — Taste 9
This is classic Jack Daniel’s made with their iconic mash bill of 80% corn, 8% rye, and 12% malted barley. That mashed juice is then sent through massive column stills before it’s slowly dripped through 10 feet of pebbly sugar maple charcoal, which is also made on-site at Lynchburg, from local lumber. After that, the whiskey is left alone for up to five or six years across Jack Daniel’s vast warehouses before batching, proofing, and bottling.
Bottom Line:
This starts with such boldness and then just kind of disappears by the end. That’s too bad because it’s pretty damn good up to that end. You can easily mix cocktails with this one. Use it as a building block.
8. Four Roses Small Batch Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey — Taste 5
Four Roses Small Batch Bourbon is a blend of four whiskeys. The blend is split evenly between the high and mid-ryes with a focus on “slight spice” and “rich fruit” yeasts. The whiskey is then blended, cut with soft Kentucky water, and bottled.
Bottom Line:
This was the opposite — the nose was so light and faint and then built toward a great finish. Again, use this as a building block for cocktails.
7. Knob Creek Small Batch Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Aged 9 Years — Taste 3
This is Jim Beam’s small batch entry point into the wider world of Knob Creek. The juice is the low-rye mash aged for nine years in new oak in Beam’s vast warehouses. The right barrels are then mingled and cut down to 100 proof before being bottled in new, wavy bottles.
Bottom Line:
This was even-keeled (if a little warm). This is a great candidate for whiskey-forward cocktails where the bourbon is the star of the show.
Heaven Hill makes great whiskey, especially inexpensive bottled in bonds. This “b-i-b” is tailored for the Evan Williams flavor profile. Still, this is Heaven Hill, so we’re talking about the same mash bill, same warehouses, and same blending team as beloved bourbons like Elijah Craig and Heaven Hill releases. This is simply built to match a higher-end Evan Williams vibe.
Bottom Line:
This is another really good bourbon (with an amazing price tag). I would still lean toward using this for whiskey-forward cocktails, but 100% would drink this over a glass full of ice.
This expression takes standard Woodford Bourbon and gives it a finishing touch. The six to eight-year-old bourbon is blended and moved into new barrels that have been double-toasted but only lightly charred. The whiskey spends a final nine months resting in those barrels before proofing and bottling.
Bottom Line:
This is where we get into the true sippers. This is deeply hewn and has a diverse and fun flavor profile. Pour it over a big rock and enjoy a slow sip.
4. Jim Beam Single Barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey — Taste 7
Each of these Jim Beam bottlings is pulled from single barrels that hit just the right spot of taste, texture, and drinkability, according to the master distillers at Beam. That means this juice is pulled from less than one percent of all barrels in Beam’s warehouses, making this a very special bottle at a bafflingly affordable price.
Bottom Line:
This is so good for what it is (especially price-wise). This is Jim Beam at its best for $20. Drink it however you like to drink your whiskey.
This is Elijah Craig’s entry-point bottle. The mash is corn-focused, with more malted barley than rye. The whiskey is then rendered from “small batches” of barrels to create this proofed-down version of the iconic brand.
Bottom Line:
This always surprises me in blinds. It’s just good f*cking bourbon and I kind of forget that in my day-to-day. Buy a bottle and drink it in every application.
This is a high water mark of what standard Wild Turkey can achieve. The Russells select the “honey barrels” (those special barrels that are as much magic as craft) from their rickhouses for single barrel bottling. The resulting whiskey is non-chill filtered but is cut down slightly to proof with that soft Kentucky water.
Bottom Line:
This is another whiskey that’s just f*cking delicious. It’s bold and warm and spicy and sweet. It’s BOURBON in all caps! I love this stuff over a big rock when I can sip it slowly.
Michter’s really means the phrase “small batch” here. The tank they use to marry their hand-selected eight-year-old bourbons can only hold 20 barrels, so that’s how many go into each small-batch bottling. The blended juice is then proofed with Kentucky’s famously soft limestone water and bottled.
Bottom Line:
I’ve been pretty effusive about the last few bottles of bourbon on this list. So it’s fair to ask what makes this bottle stand out. It’s refinement. This is big and bold and delicious like the rest of them but this has a refinement and nuance that helps it stand above the crowd — in a very clear way.
Yes, I’d sip this neat or on the rocks. But this will also make a killer cocktail. That’s versatility.
Part 3 — Final Thoughts on the Bourbons
Zach Johnston
Honestly, there wasn’t a bad bourbon on this list. And you can get every single one of them. It’s a good time to be a whiskey drinker, folks.
In the end, the top six are all winners. The top three are stellar. The Michter’s is the one to get, especially if you’re looking for the perfect bottle to up your sipping game while also upping your cocktail game.
Donald Trump took the stand on Monday in the civil fraud case levied against him by the state of New York. To the surprise of no one, the former president was a difficult witness as he repeatedly went off on tangents and called Attorney General Letitia James and other court officials “haters.”
Judge Arthur Engoron had to warn Trump’s attorneys several times to rein in their client. However, Trump persisted in rambling on during his answers, prompting prosecutors to openly joke about his inability to get to the point. It was an unmitigated disaster for Trump, so naturally, he said the exact opposite while addressing reporters outside the courtroom.
“I think you saw what I had to say today and it was very conclusive. Everything we did was exactly right,” Trump said via CNN before calling the proceedings a scam. “But, anyway, this is a case that should have never been brought and it’s a case that should be immediately dismissed.”
In a way, Trump is going to get his wish. The case is going to be over soon, but probably not for reasons that the former president will like. With Trump’s meandering testimony on the record, the attorney general’s office is ready to rest its case after Ivanka Trump testifies on Wednesday.
Naturally, social media had a field day with Trump’s responses while on the stand. You can see some of his more outrageous moments below:
My favorite line so far from the Trump trial today:
NY attorney: Did you get copies of statements in 2021?
Donald Trump: I was so busy in the White House with China, Russia, and keeping the country…
People were also tickled by the courtroom sketch of the former president, which prompted several jokes about the size of his hands. You can see those reactions below:
Props to the courtroom sketch artist who had the class to avoid depicting the ketchup smeared over the courtroom walls behind TFG https://t.co/n1yUjfCQg8
It looks like he is crammed into the witness box and the hands are moving, most likely in the accordion, so we know he is lying through his teeth. https://t.co/2eTaarQ5U1
An all too common sight this NBA season has been fans of the 13 teams that still have local TV rights owned by Bally Sports complaining about the network’s streaming service being down.
With Diamond Sports Group in bankruptcy, which owns Bally’s regional sports networks, many of those fans have been hoping for a change to be coming some time soon. On Monday, John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal brought word of just such a reprieve coming for those 13 fan bases, as Diamond Sports Group and the NBA have reached a deal that, if approved by the judge presiding over DSG’s bankruptcy case, will allow those 13 teams to reclaim their local TV rights after this season.
Diamond Sports Group reached a one-season deal with the NBA that essentially guarantees that the Bally Sports RSNs will continue to carry NBA games through the end of this season. Diamond and the NBA unveiled some of the deal’s details in a bankruptcy court filing this afternoon. The court still needs to okay the deal before it can move forward.
The NBA likes this deal because it gives the league more flexibility as Diamond tries to navigate its way through bankruptcy. Regardless of the current length of some of the NBA teams’ Bally Sports deals, all are set to end after this season.
Now, as Ourand goes on to note, those teams could end up back with Bally Sports after next summer, but it will allow them to explore other carrier options. There are a few teams that have gone to a direct-to-consumer plan, as the Suns, Clippers, and Jazz each have deals with local TV affiliates but offer a streaming option fans that don’t have a TV subscription can buy to watch all of their local games. Other teams will certainly be looking to see how successful those models are, particularly with how many teams are about to have their local rights all come up. It also could represent an opportunity for other RSNs to look to expand, such as NBC Sports and Root Sports, should they be looking to do so given how many teams are set to shop their rights.
Over the past few years, it would probably be fair to say that Stan Culture has been a little … well, toxic. From the BeyHive to the Swifties, fan wars on social media have gotten out of hand on more than one occasion, leading to people being threatened for doing little more than sitting too close to fans’ favorite pop stars.
And the worst perpetrators of all have been the Barbz. Lashing out at any provocation, they’ve terrorized critics of Nicki Minaj so badly that it honestly began to reflect poorly on the rapper herself. After all, most of her peers had made at least the semblance of reining their fans in at their worst; sometimes it seemed as though Nicki encouraged the bad behavior.
But today, finally, after around five or six years of out-of-pocket behavior, it seems Nicki is trying to call them in and calm them down. In a post on her Instagram Story, Nicki addressed their online bullying, writing, “Dear Barbz, Be sure to never threaten anyone on my behalf. Whether in jest or not, I don’t and never have condoned that. We have an amazing album right around the corner 12/08/23. It feels so surreal and euphoric. Wishing you blessings on blessings.”
If the timing seems convenient — coming as Nicki faces multiple legal actions over the Barbz’s near-constant boundary stepping — at least it’s something. As the saying goes, “Better late than never.”
Do you hear the faint jingling of several thousand sequins? That’s the Taylor Swift night on Dancing With The Stars coming soon to a screen near you.
It’s maybe a slight coincidence but let’s break down some facts: the Kansas City Chiefs play the Philadelphia Eagles on ABC next Monday, the day before DWTS. We know that Swift has been showing up to some recent games, and the NFL has been using Swiftian Concepts for their own personal benefit, so is it really far-fetched to believe DWTS is using Swift’s God-like status as a way to boost viewership after a lackluster season? You decide!
The long-running dancing competition will feature Swift’s Eras Tour choreographer Mandy Moore (not that one) as a special guest judge for its “Celebration Of Taylor Swift” night on Tuesday, November 21st. The six remaining couples will shake it off to various Swift cuts. If you ever wanted to see the likes of Alyson Hannigan and Jason Mraz battle it out on the Swift-inspired dance floor, now is your chance. Also, you must be from the year 2008, welcome.
While there is no confirmation that Swift will appear at the Chiefs game or even acknowledge the Dancing With The Stars night, she will be in Argentina this weekend, so maybe we can give her a day off from running through everyone’s brains.
With each passing season of The Boys, more viewer and critical accolades pile onto Antony Starr‘s show-stopping performance as Homelander. And every year, the artsy-fartsy Television Academy and HFPA pass him by. Granted, this is actually not too surprising because we all know that the Emmys and the Golden Globes just do this sort of thing. How many years did Rhea Seehorn get snubbed before finally being nominated for the Kim Wexler role on Better Call Saul? Too many. These awards shows favor certain types of programming, and quite frankly, both The Boys and spinoff Gen V have the audaciousness to litter sharp writing with lewd content and humor that is too biting for “prestigious” award consideration.
As well, The Boysgleefully skewers itself while also being part of a genre that is largely shunned by fancy award shows, but my god. Between these shows and Robert Kirkman’s Invincible, we now live in a world wherein Amazon is producing superhero content that soars further into the stratosphere with each outing, unlike the now-floundering MCU and DCU. And even with Gen V, a show that has been swinging further and further with each episode, Starr managed to swoop in from the sky at the last possible moment and steal the whole finale in less than one minute of screen time.
(You can rewatch that scene here, but GIFs are coming, so hang tight.)
Back when I reviewed Gen V, only six episodes had been released to critics, so I obviously didn’t know about this cameo yet. And I’m glad that was the case, because I had the chance to comment upon how an on-the-scene Homelander’s “revolting charisma would distract the audience from getting to know a whole new roster of screwed-up Supes.” So, did I drop an “oh sh*t” when I saw him materialize in front of a statue of himself? Absolutely.
Let’s first check in with what Starr did. He landed amid maddeningly distorted patriotic music, quickly surveyed the mayhem, and decided how he was going to frame the narrative. Marie addressed him as “Sir,” but he wasn’t having it.
Amazon
Anytime you see Homelander smile — whether it’s a little half-smirk like this ^^^ one or a full-on, toothpaste grin — you generally know that sh*t is going to go down. That’s down to Starr’s sheer presence, yes, and the way that the writers have developed his character in a frighteningly painstaking way. More than that, it’s the actor-ing. I’m sort of stealing the way that my colleague, Brian Grubb, often uses verbs during fun workplace exchanges, but I mean it here. Starr is not acting. He is actor-ing. (Maybe you and I will talk about the difference one day.) It’s a mood, goddammit.
Also important about the Homelander smile(s): Starr has this unparalleled way of making sure that he only smiles with his mouth. You can see it above, and it’s happening below, too. The smile never reaches his eyes because it’s fake as hell. That’s also a key delineator of psychopathy, and it’s rather astounding that Starr pulls it off in so many variations. Even more than that, he manages to still make his eyes appear dead above while also doing this little eyebrow pop before he lasers the hell out of Marie.
Amazon
What’s also curious about this scene is that Marie survived, which suggests a future showdown. And I look forward to that with relish.
There’s more going on, though. Homelander referred to Marie as an “animal” for committing violence against “your kind.” That’s a clever bit of writing that leaves open whether he’s being racist as hell, or simply that he sees himself as a superior breed of Supe (or both). He has sided with the now-forearm-less Cate after she was the one who was out of control and probably about to kill Jordan when Marie intervened. Did Homelander do this because he sees Marie as a future threat? That’s possible, but all of this potentially sets Cate up as a Starlight or Queen Maeve replacement on The BoysSeason 4.
Man, the producers weren’t messing around when they said that the timelines of these shows bump right up against each other. And it completely makes sense that Homelander would want to pull Cate (and possibly Sam) under his wing because he’s no idiot. He has likely seen enough to know that Marie isn’t buying into what Vought International is selling, and again, her blood-bending abilities (girlfriend turned blood into daggers only a few moments prior to his landing) would be more than a match for his powers.
Homelander does what is good for Homelander, and he’s only growing more unhinged with each passing The Boys season.
To briefly recap: in Season 1, he downed an entire plane full of civilians and maintained that level of menace throughout Season 2, which he capped off by jerking off from atop a skyscraper, potentially killing innocents when his jizz hit the ground (clearly, I’ve thought about this scene too much). In Season 3, he convinced a woman to commit suicide as a birthday present to himself. That was perhaps the nudge that left a lot of far-right viewers having a raging meltdown once they realized that they’d been rooting for a bad guy. And in the Season 3 finale, he killed a civilian in broad daylight.
That act was a Trump reference (bragging about being able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, etc), but Starr has been quick to point out that Homelander is not Trump because that would be “very two-dimensional,” and if this was a political thing, then “with the speechy stuff, if you want someone who can string a sentence together, who does that better than … Obama?”
Fair enough. I prefer to think that Homelander is one-of-a-kind in terms of villainy that we’ve seen onscreen. He is much more complex than Trump, and the Obama comparison similarly only fits one ability of the character. He’s an amalgamation of several influences and a personification of power in and of itself. He is also one bad dude, to say the very least. Remember when he made The Deep eat his still-alive best friend (RIP Timothy the Octopus)? And yet goddammit, Antony Starr. He’s so good at this. Too good at this.
Much of this is down to the attention to detail from the writers of The Boys, but this is very much a case of Starr infusing what could be a cartoonish character with layers. Even when he’s doing terrible things, Homelander remains a pleasure to watch and the only character in recent memory that makes me shout at the screen like that Rick Dalton pointing meme, even if I might not be using the meme correctly because I’m not spectacular with them.
There’s also a little side inquiry from my head: Starr, a natural brunette, once told us about how he shaves off his Homelander hair after filming each season. He described doing so “to fix the damaged hair” with a side effect being that “the world backs off” because people aren’t noticing a “potential psychopath in their midst.” I suspect that also helps remove the Homelander ickiness from his psyche, but perhaps I’m overreaching there.
Yet I do know a few things for sure: (1) Starr is being far too humble when he claims that he has no idea what he’s doing while acting (go watch Banshee if you don’t believe me); and (2) Whatever the guy is receiving for a paycheck, it isn’t enough.
‘The Boys’ and ‘Gen V’ can be streamed on Amazon Prime.
Last week, Variety dropped a warts-and-all report on the inner struggles at Marvel as the studio seems to have lost its shine following the completion of “The Infinity Saga” with the smash box-office hit Avengers: Endgame. While Marvel has found some success on Disney+ and delivered a small handful of successful blockbusters, the MCU hasn’t been the pop culture juggernaut it used to be.
Adding to that narrative is this week’s release of The Marvels, a sequel to Captain Marvel, which has been tracking below average for the MCU. According to Variety, the film has been plagued by extensive reshoots and a director, Nia DaCosta, who left to work on another film during a post-production:
Then eyebrows were raised again when DaCosta began working on another film while “The Marvels” was still in postproduction — the filmmaker moved to London earlier this year to begin prepping for her Tessa Thompson drama “Hedda.” (A representative for DaCosta declined to comment.)
“If you’re directing a $250 million movie, it’s kind of weird for the director to leave with a few months to go,” says a source familiar with the production.
However, in a new interview with Jake’s Takes, DaCosta has set the record straight on what really happened. Most notably, she made it clear that she was very involved in The Marvels post-production, which she worked on remotely.
“I think there’s just a lot of energy and criticism around Marvel anyway, so I’m not surprised,” DaCosta said about the Variety report making headlines. “But for me personally, it was literally just that they moved the date of the film four different times. And so, instead of it being a two year process, which I was deeply committed to, it became a three-and-a-half year process.”
According to DaCosta, Marvel was well aware that she had another film coming up, and everything was worked out before she took off for London.
“We figured out a way to do it remote, we figured out the best process,” she said via The A.V. Club. “And actually at the time that I left to go to London to start prep on my next film, everyone was so clear about what the film was, what we wanted, everyone knew what I wanted. So it really wasn’t the dramatic sort of thing that I think people are feeling like it is.”
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
(@JNeub4) 
has been a little … well, toxic. From the BeyHive to the Swifties, fan wars on social media have gotten out of hand on more than one occasion, leading to people being threatened for doing little more than 
