pop culture
The headline rundown: Modern popular culture topics in the realm of politics, legislation and activism.
Is Ed Sheeran for Everyone?
A big no-no we were taught in college while I was studying film was to avoid saying your project was “for everyone.” The reality is that you’re not “for everyone.” You can’t be. I’ve relearned this lesson myself over the years. Between Vocal, Medium, and Substack, I’d say only ninety people are subscribed to me, with fewer bothering to read my work. Of my self-published novellas, I’d say a similar number are fans. If I had to estimate, based on comments, reviews, and emails I’ve received, I would say approximately fifty people in the whole world have resonated strongly with anything I’ve made. I accept that. That is the reality of being a creative. I am in very good company.
By Conor Matthews16 days ago in The Swamp
The Missing Argument in the Stay-at-Home Parent Subsidy Debate
Preface: Video Context: Video Credit: Timcast / Tim Pool This article is a response to a recent Timcast segment discussing the proposed policy that would allow qualifying married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive childcare subsidies of roughly $9,000 per child per year. The video frames the central debate around whether this amounts to additional welfare or whether it simply redirects money government is already spending on childcare toward parents who choose to provide that care themselves. Around 9:32–10:20 , Tim argues that the welfare expenditure already exists and that the important change is where the incentive points: instead of subsidizing families specifically when parents work and children are cared for elsewhere, the same funding could begin supporting married parents who raise their children at home.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
A Better Buyout: Paying Married Parents to Buy Back Their Time
A Different Kind of Buyout I previously proposed what I called a Family Support Buyout: give families the option to voluntarily exchange a large portion of the government benefits and services already being spent on their behalf for one predictable, untaxed monthly payment they control themselves. Instead of administering SNAP, childcare subsidies, housing assistance, refundable credits, cash assistance, and other ordinary supports through separate bureaucracies, government could calculate the avoidable cost of those programs and offer families perhaps 65, 70, or 75 percent of that value directly. The family would relinquish the benefits being replaced, taxpayers would retain the remaining savings, and the household would gain dramatically greater control over how its resources are allocated. Medical coverage, disability services, catastrophic healthcare, and other specialized needs could remain separate because those costs are less suitable for a simple cash conversion. The central idea was straightforward: if government is already spending $100 supporting a family, perhaps both taxpayers and the family can benefit if the family receives $70 directly instead.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
Wielding Fear: Control Through Fear Culture
Shut up. Don’t disagree. Agree with the majority. Go with the flow and don’t make waves. Don’t balk at the system or speak your mind. Be like them. Agree with them. Say what they say; believe what they tell you. Don’t be yourself, question, or have your own mind, or else. They’ll ruin you, destroy you, and cast you out of the herd.
By Alexandra Grantabout a month ago in The Swamp
Why the New Street Fighter Movie 2026 May Divide Fans
When I heard that a new Street Fighter movie was going to happen, I was ecstatic. Wow, a live-action movie about my favorite video game characters is finally going to happen! Wait! Van Damme already made one in 1994 with Ming-Na Wen, Kylie Minogue, Damian Chapa, and the late Raul Julia. I enjoyed it, but in the end, it was a bit quirky and incomplete. Although Van Damme looked the part, to me, he may have been the least ideal actor to play the role. First, Guile is supposed to be American and should therefore have an American accent. Although Van Damme did a great job hiding his Belgian accent, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that his accent isn't American. This was corrected by the casting of Cody Rhodes, a WWE superstar whose nickname is literally "The American Nightmare." Everything about Cody Rhodes is American: the spark of sass and the proud demeanor of what it's like to be an American, gleaming with pride and hope.
By Rowan Scribnerabout a month ago in The Swamp
Family-Directed Support. AI-Generated.
American family policy has a basic design failure. Government can spend heavily around a low-income household—on subsidized child care, food assistance, housing support, tax credits, disability services, provider reimbursements, case management, and repeated eligibility reviews—while the household itself remains cash-poor, overregulated, unable to save, and vulnerable to every ordinary emergency.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcastabout a month ago in The Swamp
Pay Families Directly Without Paying Them to Remain Poor. AI-Generated.
Every debate over family policy tends to collapse into two positions: keep the current fragmented, provider-directed welfare system, or replace a household's entire public-spending footprint with one large, unrestricted cash payment. Both sides of that argument are, in their own way, correct about something important. The status quo really does trap families in cliff-ridden, cash-poor dependency on institutions that treat parental caregiving as economically worthless. The buyout really does identify a genuine contradiction — government will pay almost anyone to care for a child except the parent — and it's right that fixing that contradiction is worth real money.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcastabout a month ago in The Swamp
A Third Way for Family Support. AI-Generated.
The debate over family assistance is often framed too narrowly. One side defends a fragmented welfare system that routes money through child-care providers, food programs, housing subsidies, disability services, tax credits, and administrative agencies while many families remain cash-poor and heavily constrained. The other side responds with a sweeping alternative: calculate what government already spends around a household, convert perhaps 60 to 75 percent of that amount into direct cash, and let the family assume responsibility for ordinary living costs. Both positions identify real truths. The current system is expensive, paternalistic, and often irrational. A broad cash buyout would give families far more control. The strongest policy, however, lies between them: family-directed support that pays parents for real caregiving, replaces cliffs with gradual earnings phase-outs, protects savings and asset formation, preserves medical and protective services, and expands broader cash support only as the economy becomes productive enough to sustain it.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcastabout a month ago in The Swamp
