GoneTrending

From 1940 to 1945, an estimated 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz, the largest complex of Nazi concentration camps. More than four out of five of those people—at least 1.1 million people—were murdered there.

On January 27, 1945, Soviet forces liberated the final prisoners from these camps—7,000 people, most of whom were sick or dying. Those of us with a decent public education are familiar with at least a few names of Nazi extermination facilities—Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen—but these are merely a few of the thousands (yes, thousands) of concentration camps, sub camps, and ghettos spread across Europe where Jews and other targets of Hitler’s regime were persecuted, tortured, and killed by the millions.

The scale of the atrocity is unfathomable. Like slavery, the Holocaust is a piece of history where the more you learn the more horrifying it becomes. The inhumane depravity of the perpetrators and the gut-wrenching suffering of the victims defies description. It almost becomes too much for the mind and heart to take in, but it’s vital that we push through that resistance.

The liberation of the Nazi camps marked the end of Hitler’s attempt at ethnic cleansing, and the beginning of humanity’s awareness about how such a heinous chapter in human history took place. The farther we get from that chapter, the more important it is to focus on the lessons it taught us, lest we ignore the signs of history repeating itself.

Lesson 1: Unspeakable evil can be institutionalized on a massive scale

Perhaps the most jarring thing about the Holocaust is how systematized it was. We’re not talking about humans slaying other humans in a fit of rage or a small number of twisted individuals torturing people in a basement someplace—this was a structured, calculated, disciplined, and meticulously planned and carried out effort to exterminate masses of people. The Nazi regime built a well-oiled killing machine the size of half a continent, and it worked exactly as intended. We often cite the number of people killed, but the number of people who partook in the systematic torture and destruction of millions of people is just as harrowing.

It has now come out that Allied forces knew about the mass killing of Jews as early as 1942—three years before the end of the war. And obviously, there were reports from individuals of what was happening from the very beginning. People often ask why more wasn’t done earlier on if people knew, and there are undoubtedly political reasons for that. But we also have the benefit of hindsight in asking that question. I can imagine most people simply disbelieving what was actually taking place because it sounds so utterly unbelievable.

The lesson here is that we have to question our tendency to disbelieve things that sound too horrible to be true. We have evidence that the worst things imaginable on a scale that seems unfathomable are totally plausible.

Lesson 2: Atrocity can happen right under our noses as we go about our daily lives

One thing that struck me as I was reading about the liberation of Auschwitz is that it was a mere 37 miles from Krakow, one of the largest cities in Poland. This camp where an average of 500 people a day were killed, where bodies were piled up like corded wood, where men, women, and children were herded into gas chambers—and it was not that far from a major population center.

And that was just one set of camps. We now know that there were thousands of locations where the Nazis carried out their “final solution,” and it’s not like they always did it way out in the middle of nowhere. A New York Times report on how many more camps there were than scholars originally thought describes what was happening to Jews and marginalized people as the average person went about their daily lives:

“The documented camps include not only ‘killing centers’ but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named ‘care’ centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel.”

Whether or not the average person knew the full extent of what was happening is unclear. But surely there were reports. And we know how the average person responds to reports, even today in our own country.

How many news stories have we seen of abuses and inhumane conditions inside U.S. immigrant detention camps? What is our reaction when the United Nations human rights chief visits our detention facilities and comes away “appalled”? It’s a natural tendency to assume things simply can’t be that bad—that’s undoubtedly what millions of Germans thought as well when stories leaked through the propaganda.

Lesson 3: Propaganda works incredibly well

Propaganda has always been a part of governance, as leaders try to sway the general populace to support whatever they are doing. But the Nazis perfected the art and science of propaganda, shamelessly playing on people’s prejudices and fears and flooding the public with mountains of it.

Hermann Goering, one of Hitler’s top political and military figures, explained in an interview late in his life that such manipulation of the masses isn’t even that hard.

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders,” he said. “That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Terrifyingly true, isn’t it? This is why we have to stay vigilant in the face of fear-mongering rhetoric coming from our leaders. When an entire religion or nationality or ethnic group is painted as “dangerous” or “criminal” or “terrorists,” we have to recognize that we are being exposed to the same propaganda used to convince Germans that the Nazis were just trying to protect them. Safety and security are powerful human desires that make it easy to justify horrible acts.

Hitler was also great at playing the victim. While marching through Europe, conquering countries and rounding up millions of innocent people to exterminate, he claimed that Germany was the one under attack. Blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric surely fired up Hitler’s core supporters, but the message to the average German was that this was all being done in the name of protecting the homeland, rather than a quest for a world-dominating master race.

Lesson 4: Most of us are in greater danger of committing a holocaust than being a victim of one

I had to pause when this realization hit me one day. As fairly average white American, I am in the majority in my country. And as strange as it is to say, that means I have more in common with the Germans who either committed heinous acts or capitulated to the Nazis than I do with the Jews and other targets of the Nazi party. That isn’t to say that I would easily go along with mass genocide, but who’s to say that I could fully resist the combination of systematic dehumanization, propaganda, and terrorism that led to the Holocaust? We all like to think we’d be the brave heroes hiding the Anne Franks of the world in our secret cupboards, but the truth is we don’t really know what we would have done.

Check out what this Army Captain who helped liberate a Nazi camp said about his bafflement at what the Germans, “a cultured people” allowed to happen:

“I had studied German literature while an undergraduate at Harvard College. I knew about the culture of the German people and I could not, could not really believe that this was happening in this day and age; that in the twentieth century a cultured people like the Germans would undertake something like this. It was just beyond our imagination… – Captain (Dr.) Philip Leif – 3rd Auxiliary Surgical Group, First Army

Some say that we can gauge what we would have done by examining what we’re doing right now, and perhaps they are right. Are we speaking out against our government’s cruel family separations that traumatize innocent children? Do we justify travel bans from entire countries because we trust that it’s simply our leadership trying to keep us safe? Do we buy into the “Muslims are terrorists” and “undocumented immigrants are criminals” rhetoric?

While it’s wise to be wary of comparing current events to the Holocaust, it’s also wise to recognize that the Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with “othering,” scapegoating, and fear-mongering. We have to be watchful not only for signs of atrocity, but for the signs leading up to it.

Lesson 5: Teaching full and accurate history matters

There are people who deny that the Holocaust even happened, which is mind-boggling. But there are far more people who are ignorant to the true horrors of it. Reading first-hand accounts of both the people who survived the camps and those who liberated them is perhaps the best way to begin to grasp the scope of what happened.

One small example is Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower’s attempt to describe what he saw when he visited Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of Buchenwald:

“The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.'”

And of course, the most important narratives to read and try to digest are the accounts of those who survived the camps. Today, 200 survivors of Auschwitz gathered to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation. They warned about the rise in anti-Semitism in the world and how we must not let prejudice and hatred fester. Imagine having to make such a warning seven decades after watching family and friends being slaughtered in front of you.

Let’s use this anniversary as an opportunity to dive deeper into what circumstances and environment enabled millions of people to be killed by one country’s leadership. Let’s learn the lessons the Holocaust has to teach us about human nature and our place in the creation of history. And let’s make darn sure we do everything in our power to fend off the forces that threaten to lead us down a similarly perilous path.

This article originally appeared on 01.27.20

Beatle George Harrison was pigeon-holed as the “Quiet Beatle,” but the youngest member of the Fab Four had an acerbic, dry sense of humor that was as sharp as the rest of his bandmates.

He gave great performances in the musical comedy classics, “A Hard Days Night” and “Help!” while holding his own during The Beatles’ notoriously anarchic press conferences. After he left the band in 1970, in addition to his musical career, he would produce the 1979 Monty Python classic, “The Life of Brian.”

Harrison clearly didn’t lose his sense of humor for the rest of his life. Shortly before his death in 2001, he played an elaborate prank on Phil Collins that shows how the “Here Comes the Sun” singer would go the extra mile for a laugh.

In 1970, Harrison was recording his first solo record and arguably the best by a Beatle, “All things Must Pass.” The session for the song, “The Art of Dying” featured former Beatle Ringo Starr on drums, keyboard legend Billy Preston on keys, virtuoso Eric Clapton on guitar, and was produced by the notorious Phil Spector.

Harrison wanted a conga player for the session, so Ringo’s chauffeur reached out to Phil Collins’ manager. At the time, Collins was a relative unknown who was about to join Genesis, a band that would bring him worldwide stardom.

The 18-year-old Collins was starstruck playing on a session with two former Beatles, so he played extra hard in rehearsals, resulting in blood blisters on both hands.

“Anyway, after about two hours of this, Phil Spector says, ‘Okay congas, you play this time.’ And I’d had my mic off, so everybody laughed, but my hands were shot,” Collins told Express.

“And just after that they all disappeared – someone said they were watching TV or something – and I was told I could go,” after that, Collins was relieved of his duties and told to go home. A few months later, Collins bought the massive triple album in the record shop and was devastated to learn he’d been edited out of the song.

“There must be some mistake! Collins thought. “But it’s a different version of the song, and I’m not on it.”

Some thirty years later, Collins bought the home of Formula One driver Jackie Stewart, a close friend of Harrison. Stewart mentioned to Collins that Harrison was remixing “All Things Must Pass” for a rerelease.

“And he said, ‘You were on it, weren’t you?’ And I said, ‘Well I was there,”‘ Collins recalled.

Two days later, a tape was delivered from Harrison to Collins with a note that read: “Could this be you?” Collins continued: “I rush off and listen to it, and straight away I recognize it.” It was a recording of “The Art of Dying.”

“Suddenly the congas come in – too loud and just awful,” Collins was devastated, then as the end of the take, Harrison can be heard saying, “Hey, Phil, can we try another without the conga player?”

Collins was devastated, to say the least.

A while later, Stewart calls Collins and puts Harrison on the line. “‘Did you get the tape?’ Harrison asked. “I now realize I was fired by a Beatle,” Collins sighed. The two changed the subject, but a few minutes later, Harrison couldn’t stop laughing.

“Don’t worry, it was a piss-take. I got Ray Cooper to play really badly and we dubbed it on,” Harrison admitted. “Thought you’d like it!” So, Harrison had an entire recording session with a conga player who he asked to play poorly, just to pull one over on Collins.

If you’re in the mood for another of rock’s greatest pranks. The story of “The Ring” told by Beastie Boys’ Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz shared in “Beastie Boys Story” is another great example of someone going to incredible lengths just for a laugh.

The story revolves around the late Beasties’ rapper Adam “MCA” Yach, his bandmate Horovitz, and a very creepy ring given to him by a fan backstage at a concert.

This article originally appeared on 12.01.21

The one born Napoleone di Buonaparte (thanks to being born on the Italian-speaking Corsica) has long bewitched great filmmakers. Charles Chaplin famously wanted to make a film about him. So did Stanley Kubrick, who had to settle for another lavish period epic: Barry Lyndon, arguably his greatest achievement. But Ridley Scott succeeded where they did not, and his latest, on the infamous (though complicated) French emperor, comes out in time for Thanksgiving. What better family movie than one about one of history’s most famous cuckolds!

A week-plus ahead of the release, the review embargo lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of takes. Some were rapturous, some where skeptical. Others, though, including Uproxx’s Mike Ryan, argued that it’s best when read as a very funny comedy.

Let’s break the reviews thus far down. Here are the ones that were enraptured by Scott’s take on arguably the best historical figure in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Journey. Like Peter Bradshaw over at The Guardian:

“Many directors have tried following Napoleon where the paths of glory lead, and maybe it is only defiant defeat that is really glorious. But Ridley Scott – the Wellington of cinema – has created an outrageously enjoyable cavalry charge of a movie, a full-tilt biopic of two and a half hours in which Scott doesn’t allow his troops to get bogged down mid-gallop in the muddy terrain of either fact or metaphysical significance, the tactical issues that have defeated other film-makers.”

Or Nicholas Barber at the BBC, who saw it as yet another example of kickass octagenarians:

Martin Scorsese is 80 and Ridley Scott is nearly 86, but neither director is showing any signs of slowing down. In recent years, in fact, their films have grown longer, more expensive and more ambitious than ever. The latest example is Napoleon, Scott’s 160-minute biopic of the French military commander and ruler, which sweeps through several countries and several decades, and has several thunderous battle scenes along the way. It’s an awe-inspiring achievement, although it may leave you with a greater appreciation of Scott’s leadership skills than of Napoleon’s.

Or Robbie Collin at The Telegraph, who argued that if 85-year-old Scott “has reached the final season of his filmmaking career, Napoleon is the ideal work of wintry grandeur to mark it.” Of star Joaquin Phoenix, Collin said he plays Napoleon with “startling blunt-force charisma,” and whose “sore-thumb manner makes his loopier lines land well.” He also says Rupert Everett as the Duke of Wellington is a “treat.”

Damon Wise, at Deadline, admits that the epic “doesn’t exactly fly by,” but that it is a fascinatingly complex character study:

What takes some getting used to is that the real movie is happening in Bonaparte’s mind; he is inured to the fact that his peers think he is a thug, that he has held the world hostage, that he will fight to achieve peace by any means necessary, and, while doing it, he is dismissive of almost everyone he meets (“It’s such a shame that such a great man should have no manners,” sniffs a British envoy). It’s hard to imagine an actor that could pull this off and make I t so engaging, but Phoenix does, an achievement made especially impressive when you realize that this self-styled master of war sent over 3 million men to their deaths in just 22 years.

The Independent saw it as pure Ridley:

In short, it’s the life of Napoleon as only Scott can tell it, full of verve, spectacle, and machismo. Its battle scenes are thrilling, a throwback to the sort of spectacle no one in Hollywood – save, well, Ridley Scott – is interested in anymore. But it can be equally dispassionate, in a way that duly and accurately captures the man one contemporary described as “a chess master whose opponents happen to be the rest of humanity”.

Now the haters. Less impressed was David Rooney over at The Hollywood Reporter, who said that “even with the near-constant bluster of infantry clashes, stealth attacks, skirmishes and thunderous bloodbaths, Napoleon often feels narratively sludgy, dull and flat.”

Mashable’s Kristy Puchko was also left unimpressed:

If you don’t know the story of Napoleon Bonaparte beyond pop culture standards of his short stature, big ego, and ABBA-recognized surrender at Waterloo, Scott won’t be much help. Napoleon’s script, written by David Scarpa, has a fitful pacing, leaping from highlights and lowlights with the casualness of a history professor chatting snoozily among his peers. Cursive title cards aim to add context with the whos, wheres, and whats, but they do so with a shrug, as if they are helpful reminders instead of introductions.

One pan, though, may have touched on something: Is Scott Napoleon supposed to be funny? That’s what The New York Post’s Johnny Oleksinski was wondering: “Depicting one of the most consequential figures in all of European history as a sourpuss clown who crazily rattles off nonsense is a brow-raising choice by Scott, screenwriter David Scarpa and the always peculiar Phoenix.”

Others wondered if it was funny on purpose. IndieWire’s David Ehrlich said he “wasn’t prepared for the extent to which his latest film utterly humiliates one of history’s most ambitious rulers.”

Jordan Hoffman, over at The Messenger, opens his rave by quoting what appears to be one of the film’s most guffaw-inducing lines: one of the most powerful figures in history whining to an opponent, “You think you are so great because you have BOATS?!?!” Hoffman wonders if we’re not supposed to be taking this film entirely seriously:

In addition to whining about British boats, Napoleon Bonaparte, whilst dining, declares that “destiny has brought me this lamb chop!” He also cuts through screenwriter David Scarpa’s finely tailored dialogue with an occasional “shooshh!” when he’s heard enough, and later makes what are essentially Three Stooges noises when his passions are inflamed by Josephine.

Two years ago, Scott gifted those spending Thanksgiving with their families at the movies with House of Gucci, a not-so-secretly hilarious epic where the most accurate Italian accent went to Jared Leto. Sounds like he’s gifted us again.

Napoleon hits theaters on November 22.

Through her music and through her platforms, Pink aims to empower. Never one to play by the rules, the “So What’ hitmaker is challenging Florida legislature on a mission to instill knowledge and awareness within fans and their children.

Today (November 14), Pink and free expression organization PEN America, along with Florida bookseller Books & Books announced they will give away 2,000 books that have been banned in Florida schools. These giveaways will take place at Pink’s concerts in Miami and Sunrise, FL tonight and tomorrow, respectively.

“Books have held a special joy for me from the time I was a child, and that’s why I am unwilling to stand by and watch while books are banned by schools,” said Pink in a statement. “It’s especially hateful to see authorities take aim at books about race and racism and against LGBTQ authors and those of color. We have made so many strides toward equality in this country and no one should want to see this progress reversed. This is why I am supporting PEN America in its work and why I agree with them: no more banned books.”

According to the news release, Pink plans to give away copies of “The Family Book,” by Todd Parr, “The Hill We Climb,” by Gorman, “Beloved,” by Toni Morrison, and a book from the movement “Girls Who Code,” founded by Reshma Saujani.

“We are thrilled to be working with Pink on this important cause,” said Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read Program, in a statement. “Every child deserves access to literature that reflects their lives. Rampant censorship is depriving kids of the chance to see themselves in books and learn about the world and its history.”

The Los Angeles Clippers are 0-5 since trading for James Harden (0-4 with Harden in the lineup), and have had real issues creating good offense despite having four stars sharing the floor.

The challenge in making their new quartet work is at least three of them prefer to operate on the ball (Paul George is at least a willing secondary option) and aren’t particularly adept at moving and working off of others. The result has been a lot of stagnant offense, taking turns on the ball, and never really establishing a rhythm. Harden in particular has struggled and been overly passive, leading to Ty Lue saying they need to play through Harden more, which is likely exactly what he wants but it raises concerns about taking the ball out of Kawhi Leonard and George’s hands more.

On Tuesday night, Charles Barkley and Shaq laid out the issue that everyone seems to understand, which is they have four stars who need the ball to be at their best all on the court together, noting the fix “ain’t brain surgery” and one of them needs to move to the bench.

Barkley is right, and I do love he and Shaq rightfully losing it over Kenny trying to say Westbrook doesn’t need the ball to be effective. Smith does correctly point out other things Russ does to help the team, but pushing the pace only works when he has the ball and he is definitively not a floor-spacing threat. If anything, Harden should be a better off-ball threat given his shooting ability, but his almost confounding refusal to take catch-and-shoot threes regularly has already been a thing in his first few games with the Clippers.

At some point you expect L.A. to make a lineup change, it’s just that they almost have to prove to the stars that someone needs to make that sacrifice. What will be fascinating is who is willing (or told) to do that between Russell Westbrook and James Harden, as it almost has to be one of those two. Westbrook jumps out initially as the one to make that move, but there’s an argument to be made that he already has experience playing with George and Leonard and understands how to work with those two and does provide a few more things on the periphery even if he is not treated as a three-point threat. Harden may be the better player at this moment, but his fit is murkier, as he will slow the pace down, which Leonard already has a propensity to do, and isn’t a particularly active off-ball threat due to his preferred play style, not skill.

Esther Wojcicki has earned the right to tell people how to raise their kids. She’s an educator, journalist and bestselling author of “How to Raise Successful People” who has raised three daughters—two are CEOs and the other a doctor.

Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube, Anne Wojcicki is the co-founder and CEO of 23andMe and Dr. Janet Wojcicki is an anthropologist and epidemiologist who works on HIV progression and obesity risk in children.

In “How to Raise Successful People” Esther Wojcicki says the secret to success is the result of “TRICK”: trust, respect, independence, collaboration and kindness. In a new article she wrote for NBC Chicago, she boiled that down to one rule, “Don’t do anything for your kids that they can do for themselves.”

“Parents need to stop coddling their kids,” she continues. “The more you trust your children to do things on their own, the more empowered they’ll be. The key is to begin with guided practice: It’s the ‘I do, we do, you do’ method.”

The “I do, we do, you do” method is used by teachers to gradually give students new responsibilities. The teacher first demonstrates the task, then they do it with the student and finally, the student does it alone.

u201cSisters Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, and Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, are ranked among Americau2019s top women entrepreneurs nhttps://t.co/En8Vin9Zl7 #SelfMadeWomenu201d

— Forbes (@Forbes)
1531332002

Wojcicki says that parents can start with their children by asking them to make their beds, pick their own outfits and to help with dishes and making dinner. It’s funny that every child is raised by a parent who cooks them meals, but an astonishing number of them grow up having no idea how to boil water. Why? Because nobody bothered to get them involved.

As the old saying goes, “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he’ll eat forever.”

u201cFor all you parents out there. nYou may want to do something “unpopular” while raising your kids, “How to Raise Successful People” author Esther Wojcicki says. https://t.co/GEkHHnN5q5u201d

— NBC10 Philadelphia (@NBC10 Philadelphia)
1667227982

“The idea is to teach them how to cope with what life throws at them,” she writes. “One of the most important lessons I taught my daughters is that the only thing you can control is how you react to things.”

Wojcicki’s rules are a reaction to the modern trend of helicopter parenting, which is “overly focused on their children” where parents “take too much responsibility for their children’s experiences and, specifically, their successes or failures.” This can result in children who grow into adults with lower self-confidence and self-esteem, poor coping skills, increased anxiety and a sense of entitlement.

Simply put, when children are too dependent on their parents, they become ill-equipped to deal with real-world challenges. So when parents think they’re helping their children, they are actually setting them up for failure. Is it any wonder why we live in an age where more and more people suffer from crippling anxiety and depression? The world is a lot scarier when you’re not properly equipped to deal with everyday problems.

“When you trust kids to make their own decisions, they start to feel more engaged, confident and empowered,” Wojcicki writes. “And once that happens, there’s no limit to what they can achieve.”

While, at first, this dramatic change in parenting may seem difficult for parents who have a hard time letting go, it’s an opportunity for them to grow. “What I realized, through a lot of conscious effort, is that parenting gives us perhaps the most profound opportunity to grow as human beings,” she writes in “How to Raise Successful People.”

This article originally appeared on 11.02.22

Today’s Republican Party sure is violent. The GOP currently controls the House (by a slim margin), and polls for the 2024 election — a whole year away — slightly favor a return of Donald Trump. Has that made them happier? Hell no. On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders had to break up a fight between Oklahoma senator Markwayne Mullin and Teamsters president Sean O’Brien. The House isn’t doing so hot either. On the same day word of another, older altercation was made public involving recently ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Alas, he’s pleading innocent.

Per Mediaite, McCarthy responded to claims made by Senator Tim Burchett, one of eight Republican representatives who successfully voted to remove him from his gig back in October. Burchett accused McCarthy of shoving him, with a “clean shot to the kidneys,” while he and his security team were walking past him. When Burchett approached him about it, McCarthy told him called him “pathetic.”

“He’s a bully with $17 million and a security detail,” Burchett told reporters. “He’s the type of guy that when you’re a kid would throw a rock over the fence and run home and hide behind his momma’s skirt.”

But McCarthy is denying that he hit him — though if he had (which he didn’t) it would have been wicked nasty.

“I would not hit him in the kidney,” McCarthy said, before laying out his version of the story, in which their shoulders or elbows or both simply hit one another.

McCarthy added, “If I would hit somebody, they would know I hit them.”

So for those keeping score at home, McCarthy didn’t actually hit anybody. But he would and if he did they would stay plastered. Because they guy who got mad that a few Dr. Seuss books were being pulled from release over racist bits is tough.

(Via Mediaite)

Drake has been going hard this year. On top of his It’s All A Blur Tour, which he coheadlined with 21 Savage, Drake released his eighth studio album, For All The Dogs. While the album prompted some mixed reactions, fans seemed to love the J. Cole collaboration “First Person Shooter,” which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Next year, Drake will continue the story of It’s All A Blur, with the It’s All A Blur — The Big What? Tour. Over the course of three months, Drake will be joined by J. Cole for the It’s All A Blur — The Big What? Tour beginning in January. However, some fans have expressed disappointment as they aren’t visiting as many major cities as they Drake did for the first go-around of the tour.

Why isn’t Drake & J. Cole’s tour coming to some major cities?

While fans in New Orleans, Denver, and Nashville can look forward to seeing the two rap stars, cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas were noticeably missing from the list of tour dates. While Drake and 21 hit those cities on It’s All A Blur‘s first go around, fans were hoping to see them perform again.

J. Cole’s manager Ibrahim “IB” Hamad took to X (formerly Twitter) today to express sympathy toward fans, and offer an explanation as to why the tour isn’t hitting some major cities.

“I feel your pain but this is not a major city run, the run is for the secondary market we don’t get to go to as much and do shows like how we use to. All Love to DC though,” said IB.

The news is disappointing, however, understandable.

You can see the full list of tour dates below.

01/18/2024 — Denver, CO @ Ball Arena +
01/19/2024 — Denver, CO @ Ball Arena
01/22/2024 — San Antonio, TX @ Frost Bank Center
01/25/2024 — Oklahoma City, OK @ Paycom Center
01/29/2024 — New Orleans, LA @ Smoothie King Center +
01/30/2024 — New Orleans, LA @ Smoothie King Center
02/02/2024 — Tampa, FL @ Amalie Arena
02/07/2024 — Nashville, TN @ Bridgestone Arena +
02/08/2024 — Nashville, TN @ Bridgestone Arena +
02/12/2024 — St. Louis, MO @ Enterprise Center
02/16/2024 — Pittsburgh, PA @ PPG Paints Arena
02/20/2024 — Columbus, OH @ Schottenstein Center +
02/21/2024 — Columbus, OH @ Schottenstein Center
02/24/2024 — Cleveland, OH @ Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse
02/27/2024 — Buffalo, NY @ KeyBank Center
03/02/2024 — Kansas City, MO @ T-Mobile Center
03/05/2024 — Memphis, TN @ FedExForum
03/10/2024 — Lexington, KY @ Rupp Arena
03/14/2024 — Belmont Park, NY @ UBS Arena ~
03/18/2024 — State College, PA @ Bryce Jordan Center ~
03/23/2024 — Sunrise, FL @ Amerant Bank Arena ~
03/27/2024 — Birmingham, AL @ The Legacy Arena at BJCC ~

+ Rescheduled dates
~ Without J. Cole

A glass of expertly aged tequila can be a feast for the senses. The next time you’re served a luxurious pour, take a second to inhale the bouquet of aromas wafting from the glass and take note of the layers of flavor that bloom across your palate. Settle in and admire how they shift and morph on the finish.

It’s quite the experience. But it can be a pretty pricey one.

Too expensive to take a chance, that’s for sure. And just because a tequila expression is old and expensive doesn’t mean it’s going to great. Or even good. So to save you some money and point you towards a bottle that is going to provide an experience that meets your expectations, we put eight bottles of our favorite aged tequilas to the blind taste test.

As long as it spends some time in a barrel, we’ve included it — so this list will focus on reposados, añejos, and extra añejos. That said, we’re leaning heavily on the latter two.

Methodology:

Because we’re dealing with aged tequila, a lot of these bottles are straight-up expensive. Seven of them are well over $100 (one is nearly $400) but just to keep things interesting, we included a ~$40 añejo as a ringer to see how it would stack up against the more “crafted” bottles.

Here is today’s tasting class:

• Avion Reserva 44 Tequila Añejo
• Casa Noble Marques De Casa Noble Añejo
• Cierto Private Collection Extra Añejo
• El Tesoro Mundial Collection Knob Creek Añejo
• Herradura Seleccion Suprema Extra Añejo
• Patron El Alto Reposado
• Tres Agave Añejo Tequila
• Volcan De Mi Tierra XA Reposado

For the blind portion tasting, I had my girlfriend bring eight pours in a random order. My notes are below.

• The Absolute Best Tequilas Under $100, Ranked
• The Best Tequilas You Can Find For Under $30, Ranked
• The Absolute Best Tequilas Under $50, Ranked
• The Best Tequilas For Whiskey Drinkers, Power Ranked By A Whiskey Pro
• The Best Tequila — That Actually Tastes Like Agave — Under $60

Part 1: The Aged Tequila Blind Taste Test

Taste 1

Nose: Warm roasted chocolate notes with agave a tiny hint of oak and fresh leather.

Palate: That chocolate scent translatest to the flavor. I’m also tasting a bit of caramel and a fruity sweetness. On the second sip, I’m getting the same expression of flavors, which reminds me a bit of fancy box chocolate.

Finish: The finish is smooth but a distinct dry spice starts to build up once it’s cleared your palate. That peppery quality seems to grow in intensity the more sips you take.

Taste 2

Nose: The aroma on this pour is very subtle, I had to take my time inhaling to get a good sense of what we’re dealing with here. I’m getting some fresh rain, a hint of cinnamon, and a faint but roasted agave scent.

Palate: Buttery and delicate with a strong agave flavor, some cracked black pepper, citrus peel, cinnamon, and some warm oak. A hint of floral sweetness lurks in there too.

Finish: Incredibly smooth with some slight minerality and soft oak and spice notes.

Taste 3

Nose: Underneath an initial hint of acetone I’m getting a fruity white wine-like sweetness and some floral honey.

Palate: More honey on the palate followed by a significant hit of vanilla and a light sense of agave.

Finish: The finish is almost completely neutral. There is no burn or lingering flavor, and it goes down suspiciously smooth.

Taste 4

Nose: Rich chocolate and caramel waft from the glass. With the glass at my nose, I’m getting a lot of roasted agave and a bit of oak.

Palate: Less chocolate than I was expecting, this tequila leans towards caramel flavors with some black pepper, agave, and a slight kiss of vanilla.

Finish: A lot of oak character on the finish with a smooth and luxurious finish that is similar to bourbon.

Taste 5

Nose: Heavy on the chocolate and vanilla with roasted agave lurking underneath the strong perfumed scents.

Palate: Dark honey and brown sugar dominate the flavor, syrupy sweet with some wet wood notes.

Finish: Smooth with little to no bite and a lot of oak.

Taste 6

Nose: A mix of rich chocolate and roasted agave. I’m not getting any characteristics from the barrel, leading me to believe this is one of our reposados.

Palate: A rich Devil’s Food chocolate flavor with some coffee tones, dark cherry fruitiness, and delicate floral honey. Very pleasing and easy to drink.

Finish: A super smooth with a gentle spice.

Taste 7

Nose: Light roasted agave and juicy green apple, with some cinnamon and vanilla.

Palate: Lots of shifting flavors here, I’m getting a bit of sweet buttery, floral honey some citrus zest, and cracked black pepper that expresses itself on the tip of the tongue.

Finish: Oak and cinnamon but the finish is quick here. The flavors don’t linger, leaving it hard to savor.

Taste 8

Nose: A rich comforting combination of caramel and vanilla. A big whiff brings out the roasted agave. This is easily the most inviting of the eight tastes.

Palate: A lot of oak flavor here, chocolate and butter dominate the flavor with a hint of rich cherry, citrus, and black pepper.

Finish: Smooth and vanilla heavy with some oak notes coming in at the aftertaste.

Part 2: The Aged Tequila Ranking

8. Patron El Alto (Taste 3)

ABV: 40%
Price:$139.99

The Tequila:

While I think the bottle is beautiful and enticing, Patron’s El Alto reposado left me a little disappointed. This tequila was so smooth that much of the agave character just wasn’t present.

El Alto is blended with four year aged extra añejo, añejo, and reposado tequilas and produced at NOM 1462, the Patrón Distillery. The agave is cooked in stone brick ovens, tahona roller mill extracted, and rested in American white oak barrels.

The Bottom Line:

Smooth and drinkable but the agave isn’t present enough to stand out for me.

7. Marques de Casa Noble Añejo (Taste 5)

ABV: 40%
Price: $169.99

The Tequila:

The Marques de Casa Noble line of expressions is the top-tier stuff from Casa Noble and is much more luxurious in presentation and flavor than the regular line. This bottle features a blend of añejo and extra añejo tequilas aged between one and five years and is produced at NOM 1137 La Cofradia.

The agave is cooked in stone brick ovens, roller mill extracted, and aged in French Oak barrels.

Ultimately, what hurt this tequila was a lack of focus on the flavors. It had a smooth finish but didn’t have much character to it.

The Bottom Line:

Smooth and easy to drink but lacking a sense of agave on the palate or finish.

6. Volcan De Mi Tierra XA Reposado (Taste 6)

ABV: 40%
Price: $184.99

The Tequila:

Volcan De Mi Tierra’s XA originated as a bottle service-only tequila until it hit retail shelves this year. In its bottle service days, a single bottle was upwards of $1000, but now it’s much more sensibly priced at just under $200.

Crafted at NOM 1523, Agrotequilera de Jalisco, this tequila features a blend of reposado, añejo, and extra añejo tequilas made from agave cooked in a high-pressure autoclave that is rested in American White Oak barrels.

It is a certified additive-free tequila by Tequila Matchmaker. Ultimately, I don’t have anything negative to say about this tequila, I think its a pretty great bottle but just couldn’t compete with some of our other bottles.

The Bottom Line:

Smooth and easy to drink, but it lacks an agave character that gives it that wow factor.

5. Tres Agaves Añejo (Taste 7)

ABV: 40%
Price: $37.99

The Tequila:

Tres Agaves Añejo was by far the biggest surprise of this tasting. This is a tequila that is less than 1/4 the price of the other bottles on this list, and here it is holding its own against the “luxury” bottles. Tres Agaves is produced at NOM 1614, Tequilera Tap, using agave that is cooked in a high-pressure autoclave, roller mill extracted and rested for 18 months in repurposed Kentucky Bouron and Tennesse Whiskey barrels.

While I think this is a great bottle for the price, the biggest thing that separates it from the bottles that rank higher is that the flavors finish too quickly here. There isn’t much to savor, making this a great option to mix in a cocktail.

The Bottom Line:

A great aged tequila that punches way above its price tag. Because of its low price, this is a great option for cocktails that use aged tequila as the base.

Avion Reserva 44 Extra Añejo (Taste 4)

ABV: 40%
Price: $119.99

The Tequila:

Avion Reserva 44’s big sell is that it sports 44 unique and rich flavor notes, while I can’t make out 44, there is no doubt that a pour of this stuff provides a bouquet of shifting flavors.

The tequila is produced at NOM 1416, Productos Finos de Agave, and is made from agave cooked in stone brick ovens, roller mill extracted, and rested for 26 months in American oak barrels.

I like this bottle a lot, but it tastes a bit more perfumed than our top three.

The Bottom Line:

Supremely smooth and sweet, with little to no bite.

3. Herradura Seleccion Suprema Extra Añejo (Taste 8)

ABV: 40%
Price: $399.99

The Tequila:

Herradura’s Seleccion Suprema is by far the most expensive tequila in this lineup and while this bottle is incredible, it wasn’t outstanding enough to land that top spot. This tequila has taken home a gold medal at the San Francisco Spirits Competition and is rested in French oak barrels for five long years.

What keeps it from being truly outstanding to me is its syrupy sweet flavor. Some people are going to love that but even in aged tequila, I like the bite of agave.

The Bottom Line:

Fantastic, supremely smooth, and very easy to drink. But it leans on the sweet side.

2. Cierto — Tequila Extra Añejo (Taste 1)

ABV: 40%
Price: $279.99

The Tequila:

Cierto is a fairly new label that has hit the scene with a lot of hype. To date, the brand has scooped up over 107 awards including Best in Class at the San Francisco World Spirits Competition and New York World Wine and Spirits Competition. It was named the Best Extra Añejo at the LA Invitation Spirits Challenge and is certified additive-free by Tequila Matchmaker.

The tequila checks all the boxes, the bottle is beautiful, it’s a multi-award winner, additive-free, and pricey, but I’m happy to say that it completely lives up to the hype. This is simply one of the best añejos on the market right now.

The Bottom Line:

A fantastic aged tequila that provides a lot of complex character and a delicious bouquet of shifting flavors that bounce between sweet and dessert-like, and earthy and agave forward.

1. El Tesoro — Mundial Knob Creek Edition Añejo (Taste 2)

ABV: 40%
Price: $169.99

The Tequila:

Released just this month, El Tesoro’s Mundial Knob Creek Edition Añejo is a super-limited tequila created by famed master distiller Carle Camarena. This tequila blew my mind and is a testament to El Tesoro’s level of craft.

This añejo is aged for 12 months in charred oak Knob Creek Whiskey barrels which give it a strong whiskey character that is a pleasure to savor. From cooked agave to stone fruit, cinnamon, leather, and black pepper, this tequila is everything a great sipper should be, with a tasteful hint of vanilla on the backend that tastes luxurious without coming across as perfumed or artificial.

The Bottom Line:

From smell to sip to finish this tequila is perfect. The flavors morph on the palate in a way that expresses itself slightly differently with each sip making every drink a journey.

Last week David Zaslav struck again. The Warner Bros. Discovery honcho, who achieved widespread infamy for such Bond villain decisions as cancelling nearly completed movies, decided to cancel another one. Into the void was thrown the much-anticipated Looney Tunes film Coyote vs. Acme, a clever-sounding riff on the belovedly violent Wile E.-Roadrunner shorts. After much furor, the company wound up backtracking on that one — sort of — but that may not be enough to spare them the wrath of Congress.

Per The Hollywood Reporter, Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro took to Twitter/X Monday to rip Warner Bros. Discovery a new one, vowing to do what Congress used to do: go after large monopolies, such as movie studios, who’ve amassed too much power.

“The WBD tactic of scrapping fully made films for tax breaks is predatory and anti-competitive,” Castro tweeted. “As the Justice Department and @FTC revise their antitrust guidelines they should review this conduct. As someone remarked, it’s like burning down a building for the insurance money.”

It’s not the first time Castro has gone after Warner Bros. Discovery. In April, he called on the powers-that-be to look at AT&T’s semi-recent sale of Warner Bros. to Discovery, especially after they deep-sixed both Batgirl and the Scoob! sequel. He argued that the corporation could “adopt potentially anticompetitive practices.”

Before WBD nixed Coyote vs. Acme, it was test screening through the roof. To make matters worse, the company jettisoned hundreds of classic Looney Tunes shorts from the streamer formerly known as HBO Max. But unlike poor, eternally unlucky Wile E. Coyote, it sounds like his first big movie might catch a break.

(Via THR)