meaning

On the eve of the release of her 12th album, Taylor Swift received a thank-you note from George Michael’s estate for including his work in her version of “Father Figure.”

“When we heard the track we had no hesitation in agreeing to this association between two great artists and we know George would have felt the same,” the “Freedom!” singer’s estate posted Thursday on X.

Taylor’s take on “Father Figure” incorporates an interpolation of Michael’s 1987 song from his album “Faith.”

Both songs share a common thread of telling the tale of a specific relationship. In a 1987 interview with ET, the former Wham! singer turned solo star — who died over the Christmas holiday in 2016 — vaguely discussed the meaning behind his track.

“‘Father Figure’ is just a very, without going into too much detail, it’s just a very specific experience that I wrote about a specific relationship with one person,” Michael said.

“I think there’s a definite pattern in people’s lives where they move away from their parents, then they spend time on their own and then they look for that replacement,” he added.

Similarly, the fourth song on Swift’s album “The Life of a Showgirl,” which was released on Thursday, tells the experience of a specific relationship between a mentor and his protégé.

Hmmm. Who could it be? Are the lyrics imaginative or are the details too specific to brush off as fiction? Let’s dissect.

Swift opens her track with: “When I found you, you were young, wayward, lost in the cold / Pulled up to you in the Jag’, turned your rags to gold.”

There is one person who turned her into the gold standard of pop — music executive Scott Borchetta, who signed her to his Big Machine Records label back in the day.

Swift worked with Borchetta on her first six albums until she wanted to buy her master recordings from the label, which led to the end of their partnership.

The song initially takes the perspective of the mentor who sees potential, profit and the opportunity to be a father figure for the protégé. In the tail end of the track, the point of view changes to the other side.

“You want a fight, you found it / I got the place surrounded / You’ll be sleeping with the fishes before you know you’re drowning.”

Again, the details seem too specific to write it off as pure fiction, but Swifties may have to stick to speculation unless Swift goes on the “New Heights” podcast to discuss the meaning behind her lyrics with her future husband, Travis Kelce, and soon-to-be brother-in-law, Jason Kelce.

Don’t hold your breath — there’s probably a better chance she releases a new version of “Life of a Showgirl” first.

Like many young men these days, Kamaldeep Dhanoa, a lanky 17-year-old, knew he wanted to do something with his life, be a part of something, but didn’t quite know what that meant.

Coming up with a career was important. But even more, it was finding the right friends — discovering what he wanted to be a part of.

He did both when he joined Improve Your Tomorrow, a mentorship organization for teenage boys and young men — that vulnerable, chronically online demographic from which Charlie Kirk drew many of his most ardent supporters, and where so much of our societal angst is focused in the wake of his death.

Now a senior at Florin High School in a suburb outside Sacramento, Dhanoa has a plan to become a paramedic, and more importantly, has those friendships that help him feel not just connected, but included and valued.

His something.

“I just know I have brothers around me,” he told me Tuesday. “We’re always with each other. It gives you, like, a sense of security. So if you’re feeling down, you could always, always rely on them.”

Dhanoa was hanging out in his school’s gym with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who dropped by to announce the California Men’s Service Challenge, an effort to recruit 10,000 Golden State males to serve as mentors to boys such as Dhanoa, so more boys can find their something.

It’s a worthy effort and before you jump to thinking it’s a reaction to Kirk, I’ll point out that 10 years ago, California’s first partner, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, made a documentary about the crisis of connection and identity facing young men, “The Mask You Live In.”

Recently, her husband caught up.

To be fair, a lot of us have been slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding why so many young men seem drawn to the obvious loneliness and disconnection of chronically online lives.

Kamaldeep Dhanoa, 17, and Michael Lynch helped Gov. Gavin Newsom announce his new statewide initiative to engage more men in volunteer and mentorship work.

(Anita Chabria/Los Angeles Times)

“Touch grass” has become a generation’s cultural shorthand to describe both the isolation and cure for people who seem so deep into a virtual world that the real one has lost meaning. It’s a dismissive way of looking at a problem that doesn’t begin and end with boys.

But, if we didn’t see it earlier, Kirk’s killing has made it clear that there are too many boys that need to be pulled back from the brink of a very bad something. One that is less about left or right and more about exactly who and what those boys stumble upon inside those ethereal spaces that most parents can’t even find, much less understand.

“We’ve got to get these kids back,” Newsom said. “They’re very susceptible young men. They’re very vulnerable online.”

Even more concerning, when the nihilism of the darkest corners of the internet catches up to their psyches, “young people weaponize those grievances,” Newsom said — whether that anger turns inward or outward.

Suicide among young men has increased. In 2023, the male suicide rate was about 23 deaths per 100,000 men, nearly four times higher than for women, a number that has been climbing for years (albeit with some slight dips). Sadly, women attempt suicide more often, but men have a higher rate of completion, often because they use more deadly means such as guns.

But lonely boys are also more prone to commit violence on others, maybe especially when they mix their anger with politics. Once recent study by social epidemiologist Julia Schleimer at the University of Washington School of Public Health found that individuals who reported having few social connections were, “more likely than others to support political violence or be personally willing to engage in it in one form or another.”

For reference, about 15% of men have no close friendships, according to a recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life. Newsom puts that figure even higher for young men, with “one in four men under 30 years old reporting that they have no close friends, a five-fold increase since 1990.”

Kirk stepped into that gap, providing meaning and belonging not just through his podcasts, where he was best known, but through the grassroots Turning Point USA organization that gave thousands of young people (of both sexes) both an ideology and, equally as important, real-world connections and events.

“Obviously Charlie Kirk was a master at not only the work he did online, but offline, and his capacity to organize and engage,” Newsom said.

Whether you agreed with Kirk’s views or not (and I did not agree on many points, including matters of race, sexual orientation, immigration or the meaning of patriotism), he created that something that is missing for so many young people. He created a vision of an America that needed to be saved, and could be saved, through a dedication to a certain kind of family and a certain kind of faith. As Newsom described it of his own effort, young people don’t just want a cause. They want to feel invested, they want to feel an “obligation to give back.”

If Newsom’s recent foray into Trump-esque social media proves anything, it’s that he’s willing to learn, even emulate, success — wherever he finds it. Newsom is trying to offer the belonging that Kirk supplied, seeped not in the exclusion and rigidity that Kirk embodied, but in California values.

“It’s about building an inclusive community of all different kinds of voices,” Michael Lynch told me of the California Challenge. He’s the co-founder and chief executive of Improve Your Tomorrow, the organization Dhanoa belongs to.

Lynch said kids get all kinds of benefits from mentors, but when he asks what those are, the sentence usually starts, “Now that I have friends…. “

The outcome of the effort to bring boys out of the virtual world is all about who those friends are, who pulls them out.

Our boys don’t just need to touch grass, they need to be around men who don’t seek to impose values, but teach them how to craft their own, how to believe in themselves before they believe in something someone is selling.

“What the world needs is your authenticity,” Newsom told a teenage journalist who covered the event for the school newspaper. “And so I just hope we take a deep breath and discover the most important, powerful thing in the world, and that’s who you are.”

If Newsom’s effort inspires just one good man to step up and help a kid figure that out — who they are, and how to believe in themselves first and forever — it will be something.

Kate Middleton looked emotional at the Wimbledon Centre Court reception as she made a rare public appearance for the Women’s Final

Kate Middleton was given a standing ovation as she returned to Centre Court for the Ladies’ Singles Wimbledon Final on Saturday.

The Princess of Wales‘ emotional arrival into the Royal Box comes after she has scaled back her public appearances since revealing her cancer diagnosis last year.

Kate looked radiant as she made her entrance, dressed in a chic yellow dress with a pleated skirt and belted waist. Eagle-eyed fans will have noticed a stand-out bow accessory pinned to Kate’s dress. Prince William’s wife has been seen wearing the small dark green and purple bow attached below her shoulder at the sporting event in previous years.

But fans may not know the special reason for the fashion statement.

Kate is the patron of the AELTC, which conducts the day-to-day operations of The Championships and has been since 2016. The club made green and purple the official colours back in 1909. Kate first made the sartorial show of support in 2017 and has worn the same garment to the sporting event ever since.

The princess, who is the patron of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, attended the final of the Women’s competition where Iga Swiatek beat Amanda Asiminova 6-0, 6-0.

Other VIPs lucky enough to get a seat in the royal box included former long-distance runner Mo Farah and former US world tennis No1 Billie Jean King.

Kate later presented the trophy to Swiatek. She also had some kind words for Anisimova who burst into tears after the match.

Anisimova was the first women’s singles finalist not to win a game for more than a century, going back to 1911.

Revealing details of her conversation with Kate, she said after the trophy ceremony: “It was such an honour to meet her,” Anisimova said. “I wasn’t sure if she was going to come out today, if she was going be there, so it was just really nice to see her. She definitely had a few things to say that were making me emotional again! But she was really kind, and she told me to keep my head high.

“I don’t really want to reveal everything she said to me, but I also spoke to her again after the match, because I passed by her, and she had all the best to say to me. So I guess it was a positive of today, and I can try and focus on that and not the match.”

Kate returned to public duties on July 2 with a visit to a hospital’s well-being garden, where she spoke candidly about her cancer recovery. She said, “You put on a sort of brave face, stoicism through treatment, treatments done, then it’s like, “I can crack on, get back to normal,’ but actually the phase afterwards is really, really difficult.”

The visit marked her first appearance since missing Royal Ascot on June 18.

A lot of people online have been very, very upset over the Trump Department of Justice’s twofold conclusion, announced last Sunday, that Jeffrey Epstein’s death in jail in 2019 was a suicide and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had no “incriminating ‘client list’ ” among its Epstein files.

The tremendous uproar against the Justice Department and FBI has crossed partisan lines; if anything, it has been many conservative commentators and some Republican elected officials who have expressed the most outrage, with accusations and implications that the government is hiding something about the case to protect powerful individuals.

Given the sordid nature of the underlying subject matter and the fact the feds closely examined “over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography,” the obsession with the “Epstein files” gives off a vibe that is, frankly, somewhat creepy. To be sure, it is always righteous to seek justice for victims, but many don’t want public scrutiny.

The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has not been its finest hour. During a February interview on Fox News, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said, in response to host John Roberts’ question about whether the Justice Department would release a “list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients,” that the list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review.” It is an astonishing about-face for Bondi to now disavow that investigators have any such list. The Trump administration owes us all a clear explanation.

With that large caveat aside, though, the fact remains: This is just not the biggest deal in the world — and if you think it is, then you probably need to log off social media.

The midterm elections next fall are not going to be determined by the existence — or absence — of a “client list” for an extravagantly wealthy dead pedophile. Nor will they be decided on the absurd grounds of whether FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have somehow been “compromised.” (They haven’t.) Instead, the election — and our politics — will be contested on typical substantive grounds: the economy, inflation, immigration, crime, global stability and so forth. This is as it should be. There are simply better uses of your time than fuming over the government’s avowed nonexistence of the much-ballyhooed client list.

You might, for instance, consider spending more time, during these midsummer weeks, with your family. Maybe you can take the kids camping or fishing. Maybe you can take them to an amusement park or to one of America’s many national park treasures. You can spend less time scrolling Instagram and TikTok and more time reading a good old-fashioned book; you will learn more, you will be happier and you will be considerably less likely to traffic in fringe issues and bizarre rhetoric that alienates far more than it unifies.

Instead of finding meaning in the confirmation biases and groupthink validations of social media algorithms, perhaps you can locate meaning where countless human beings have found it since time immemorial: religion. Spend more time praying, reading scripture and attending services at your preferred house of worship. All of these uses of your time will fill you with a sense of stability, meaning and purpose that you will never find deep in the bowels of an X thread on the Epstein files.

Too many people today who are deeply engaged in America’s combustible political process have forgotten that there are more important things in life than politics. And even within the specific realm of politics, there are plenty of things that are more deserving of attention and emotional investment than others. Above all, it is conservatives — those oriented toward sobriety and humility, not utopianism and decadence — who ought to be able to properly contextualize America’s political tug-of-war within our broader lives and who ought to then be able to focus on the meaningful political issues to the exclusion of tawdry soap opera drama.

Like many others, I expect that the Justice Department’s recent — and seemingly definitive — waving away of the Epstein files saga will not actually prove to be the final word on the matter. To the limited extent that I allow myself to think about this sideshow, I hope that the administration does squarely address the many legitimate and unanswered questions now being asked by a frustrated citizenry that has seemingly been misled by the Trump administration, either in Bondi’s February statement or in this month’s report. But I also hope that the extent of this past week’s rage might serve as an edifying moment. Let’s return to the real things in life and focus on what matters most.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

WASHINGTON — As Republicans gather this week in Houston, we hear much talk of conservatives and conservatism. Is George Bush a true conservative? Will conservatives support the President, or stay home? Is the movement intellectually exhausted? Who will emerge to lead conservatives in 1996?

But these discussions all overlook one significant point: The Republicans are not really a conservative party. Indeed, we might say of American conservatism, as Mohandas K. Gandhi said of Western civilization–”It would be a good idea.”

True conservatism is a philosophy committed to conserving– conserving families, communities and nation in the face of change. Committed to preserving fundamental values, such as accountability, civic duty and the rule of law. And committed to a strong government to realize these ends. What passes for conservatism in America today bears only a passing resemblance to this true conservatism. It worships at the twin altars of free enterprise and weak government–two decidedly unconservative notions.

Real conservatism values security and stability over the unfettered free market. In Germany, for example, it was the conservative Otto von Bismark–not socialists–who developed social insurance and built the world’s first welfare state. Today conservatives throughout the world–but not here–endorse government-provided national health care, because they recognize public needs are not always met by the private sector. And they see a role for government in encouraging national economic development.

A true conservative movement would not ignore the decay of our great cities, or see the disorder of the Los Angeles riots only as a political opportunity. Nor would they pay homage to “free trade” while the nation’s manufacturing base withered. Nor would a conservative President veto pro-family legislation requiring companies to provide leave to new mothers, in deference to business prerogatives.

Traditional conservatives champion community and nation over the individual. They esteem public service, and promote civic obligation. They reject the “invisible hand” argument, that everyone’s pursuit of individual self-interest will magically yield the best public outcome, believing instead in deliberately cultivating virtue. Authentic conservatives do not assail 55 m.p.h. speed limits and seat-belt laws as encroaching totalitarianism.

Finally, a genuine conservatism values the future over the present. It is a movement of elites to be sure, but of elites who feel that their privilege entails special obligations. The old word for this was “stewardship”–the obligation to care for the nation’s human and natural resources, and to look out for future generations’ interests.

Such conservatives would not open up public lands for private commercial exploitation, or undermine environmental regulations for short-term economic growth. They would not cut funding for childrens’ vaccinations, knowing that the cost of treating illness is far greater. And a conservative political party would never preside over a quadrupling of the national debt.

In America, then, what we call conservatism is really classical liberalism: a love of the market, and hatred of government. Adam Smith, after all, was a liberal, not a conservative. As the economist Gunnar Myrdal once noted: “America is conservative . . . but the principles conserved are liberal.”

American conservatives have often celebrated the country’s historically “exceptional” character: the acceptance of capitalism and the absence of any significant socialist movement. Curiously, though, they often miss their half of the story: the absence of a real Tory conservatism. What Louis Hartz called America’s “liberal consensus” excluded both of the great communitarian traditions–ain’t nobody here but us liberals.

True conservatism’s weakness as a political tradition in America is thus an old story. When values confront the market here, the market usually wins. In recent years, though, conservative social values seem to have been eclipsed. Many of today’s conservatives are really libertarians–proponents of a radical individualism that has little in common with conservatism. Consider some very non-conservative messages that conservatives have delivered in the past two weeks.

Conservative GOP leaders called on the President to propose massive new tax cuts as the centerpiece for a possible second term. Fiscal responsibility, apparently, is no longer part of conservative doctrine–if it gets in the way of a nice capital gains tax cut.

The Wall Street Journal assailed Maryland for introducing a new 75-hour community-service requirement for high school students. What about teaching values in school? Or putting nation before self?

When it comes to good conservative values, today’s conservatives talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. Look at Dan Quayle, the elected official who supposedly most speaks to real conservatives. Every day, the vice president is out there talking about traditional values, and slaying liberal dragons like Murphy Brown. His agenda: tax dollars for parochial schools, banning abortion, allowing school prayer. This is the 1980 Moral Majority program. Yet, after 12 years in power, the Republican Party has delivered nothing to social conservatives–the closest thing we have in this country to authentic conservatives. Republicans’ business allies, on the other hand, have reaped tremendous gains in such areas as taxation, regulation and labor relations. There are many social-issue conservatives in the GOP, but when it comes to governing, they are clearly the junior partners.

These social issues are trotted out every four years, but it’s just a ritual, like hanging Christmas lights on the front porch. The rest of the time, they sit in the Republican basement. For them, it’s simply a matter of electoral opportunism–a way to attract working-class voters whose economic interests drew them to the Democrats. Now Barry M. Goldwater, the grand old man of American conservatism, has called on the party to abandon its anti-abortion commitment. The political calculus has changed, and so must the platform. Individual liberty is the important point now. It would appear that the ban on abortion was only in there to win votes in the first place–if it doesn’t do that, what’s the point?

The future seems to lie with the libertarians. We should expect more Republicans like Gov. Pete Wilson, who prides himself on savaging the social safety net. Personal freedom is the message: free to have an abortion, also free to go hungry.

However, this does not bode well for conservatives’ long-term electoral fortunes. Economic liberalism is a weak political force in countries with conservative and social-democratic alternatives. Historically, lower-class voters have been mobilized by appeals to class solidarity on the one hand, or religion and nationalism on the other. Liberalism is the credo of the upper middle class.

The historical failure of American elites to embrace authentic conservatism is a loss for the nation. Even liberals–in the American sense–should regret this void. In fact, they should be most concerned. Conservatives would resist the relentless privatization of our social and economic life, and help rein in the nation’s free-market excesses. If real conservatives had been in charge in the 1980s, we might have been spared the orgy of speculation, takeover and deregulation that so weakened our economy.

The free market, after all, is a powerful force for change. It creates and destroys communities, sunders families and undermines traditional values. People desire protection from it for sound conservative reasons–they want security and stability. A genuine conservatism would provide a kind of social ballast for a nation constantly buffeted by change.

America is too liberal for its own good. Our brand of conservatism is too American for its own good. Maybe it’s time to let conservatives be conservatives.

YOU may have thumbed through an Argos catalogue over the years, but have you ever stopped to think about the name?

It turns out there is a key reason why the brand has its moniker – and its history is also tied to a popular supermarket too (and it’s not Sainsbury’s).

3

3

The Argos name doesn’t come from its founder – Richard Tompkins – but is taken from the Greek city of Argos.

It was also chosen as it would feature high up in alphabetical brand listings.

The history behind the brand is even more fascinating than the name – and despite the brand now being owned by Sainsbury’s, its early ties were with Tesco.

In the 1960s, the founder of Tesco, Sir Jack Cohen, signed up his grocery store chain to the Green Shield Stamps scheme.

This meant that Tesco customers could get stamps when they bought products at his shop. 

They could then use stamps to buy products at the Green Shield Stamps catalogue stores which were located around the country.

The collaboration proved to be a huge success, and helped Tesco gain loyal customers.

It also helped Green Shield Stamps, who was owned by Richard Tompkins, and also gave him the idea that customers could also use cash to buy products from his catalogue. 

He decided to rebrand Green Shield Stamps as Argos in 1973.

Argos actually lost Tesco as a client around 1977, when they ditched using the Green Shield Stamps scheme and focused on lowering prices across the chain.

In 1979, Argos was purchased by British American Tobacco and stopped issuing stamps entirely.

Just over a decade later, Argos was demerged and floated back on the stock market, but had now become a recognisable household brand.

By 2010, over 20 million copies of the catalogue were printed, with many people buying them ahead of Christmas to choose presents.

While Argos had major ties to Tesco when it was launched, it now is owned by one of its main rivals.

3

In April 2016, Argos’ parent Home Retail Group agreed to a £1.4 billion takeover by Sainsbury’s – but the brand has struggled over the past few years.

A large number of the high street Argos stores have closed over the past few years, with many being replaced by an Argos outlet in Sainsbury’s stores.

A spokesperson for Argos previously told The Sun: “The transformation of our Argos store and distribution network has been progressing at pace for several years now, improving availability, convenience and service for customers.

“As part of this, we are continuing to open new Argos stores and collection points in many of our Sainsbury’s supermarkets, enabling customers to purchase thousands of technology, home and toy products from Argos while picking up their groceries.”

HISTORY OF ARGOS

FOUNDED in 1972 by Richard Tompkins, Argos revolutionised the British retail landscape with its unique catalogue-based shopping model.

The first store opened in Canterbury, Kent and quickly expanded, becoming a household name.

Customers could browse the extensive Argos catalogue, fill out a purchase slip, and collect their items from the in-store collection point.

The retailer was sold to British American Tobacco Industries in 1979 for £32million before being demerged and listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1990.

In April 1998, the company was acquired by GUS plc.

Throughout the decades, Argos adapted to changing consumer habits, embracing e-commerce early on and launching its website in 1999.

This allowed customers to reserve items online for in-store pick-up, blending the convenience of digital shopping with the immediacy of physical retail.

By 2006, Argos became part of the Home Retail Group which was demerged from its parent GUS plc.

At the time, Home Retail Group also owned Homebase and Habitat.

In 2016, Argos, along with its Home Retail Group sister brand Habitat, was acquired by Sainsbury’s.

Since the acquisition, the Argos brand has been integrated into Sainsbury’s operations, significantly expanding its presence through dedicated concessions within Sainsbury’s supermarkets across the UK.

However, due to declining sales, Sainsbury’s discontinued Argos’ iconic printed catalogue in 2020.

Despite these setbacks, Argos has remained true to its roots, offering a wide range of products from toys and electronics to furniture and jewellery.