ReportWire

Tag: Opinion

  • Editorial: Latest nor’easter can’t compare to Blizzard of ‘78

    [ad_1]

    As some southeastern Massachusetts communities and the state of Rhode Island still try to dig out from Monday’s nor’easter, many have drawn comparisons to the standard by which all the region’s snowstorms are measured — the Blizzard of ’78.

    These two blockbuster winter storms certainly share some characteristics — including hurricane-force wind gusts and relentless snowfall.

    And both storms descended on the area on a Monday — Feb. 6 in ’78.

    Coincidentally, both were preceded by significant snowstorms just a few weeks prior.

    Coastal communities in both instances took the brunt of these two ocean behemoths, due to a wind-fueled tidal storm surge.

    Like Monday’s storm, Isolated locations in the ’78 blizzard received higher snow totals, with as much as 40 inches recorded in Plymouth County.

    On average, that 1978 storm deposited about 27 inches of snow on the area — 27.1 inches in Boston, 27.6 in Providence.

    Records at the time indicated Lowell received anywhere from 24 to 30 inches of the white stuff.

    Though our just concluded nor’easter certainly wreaked havoc on certain communities, the devastating effects of the ’78 blizzard were more widespread.

    The fury of our recent nor’easter relented by Monday evening, but the 1978 storm pummeled the region for 35 consecutive hours, a seemingly stationary menace that continued to spew an endless stream of snow and high winds.

    The huge technological strides made in the intervening 48 years also contributed to the widely different level of preparation for these two powerful weather events.

    Unlike today, the 1978 storm’s devastation was amplified by rudimentary weather forecasting and a lack of instant communication.

    The internet didn’t exist. There were no weather alerts sent to a nonexistent smartphone, or 24/7 cable news networks. MassDOT only received periodic updates from the National Weather Service over a teletype machine.

    That contributed to the storm’s devastating effect — it seemingly arrived on our doorstep with little advanced warning.

    By the time snow actually began in earnest, it was far too late for last-minute preparations.

    Weather forecasts at the time suggested a blizzard that struck the Midwest could meet a tropical storm heading up from the southern coast, covering the area in snow on that Monday morning.

    But when morning came without any precipitation, skeptical New Englanders treated the workday like business as usual.

    By the time the realization of the storm’s severity finally sunk in, countless commuters clogged the highways by early afternoon in a frantic rush to get home before blizzard conditions made that impossible.

    Unfortunately, the storm soon made even major highways impassable.

    Rather than running the risk of staying in  their cars in the hopes of some assistance, motorists simply left their vehicles and walked to safety.

    By the time then-Gov. Michael Dukakis — wearing what would become his signature cardigan wool sweater — declared a state of emergency, the storm was cranking.

    The state’s interstate highways were shut down for a week, along with local driving bans.

    Recovery efforts received significant help from the National Guard — who often manned checkpoints to keep nonessential workers off the roads — and cost hundreds of millions in 1978 dollars.

    Another stark difference were the deaths attributed to the two storms.

    As of this writing, at least five deaths have been attributed to this nor’easter — two in Maryland from a falling tree, one from carbon monoxide poisoning in Rhode Island, and two in a storm-related motor-vehicle accident in Pennsylvania.

    The Blizzard of ’78, by contrast accounted for about 100 deaths across the entire East Coast.

    Some deaths were attributed to carbon monoxide poisoning, as people stranded in their cars left the engines running to keep them warm, and snow piled up around them.

    But none were more tragic than the ill-fated rescue attempt by the crew of the 49-foot pilot boat Can Do.

    It left Gloucester Harbor on Feb. 6 to assist a 44-foot Coast Guard cutter that had lost power and radar while trying to aid the oil tanker Global Hope off the coast of Salem.

    The Can Do, rocked by a large wave, lost radar, and ultimately sank, with all crew members — Frank Quirk, Frank Quirk Jr., Donald Wilkinson, Norman Curley, and Ken Fuller — losing their lives.

    The National Weather Service compiled these significant Blizzard of ’78 statistics:

    • Snowfall: Started late Feb. 5, hit hardest Feb. 6 and continued until Feb. 7.

    • Duration: 35 hours and 40 minutes.

    • Snowfall totals: 1 to 3 feet.

    • Deaths in Massachusetts.: 73.

    • Blizzard-related injuries/illnesses: 4,324.

    • Cars stranded on Route 128: 3,000.

    • Trucks stranded on Route 128: 500.

    • Damages: $500 million.

    • Top wind gust in Boston: 79 mph.

    • Typical hurricane wind speed: 74 mph.

    • Favorite media blizzard blurb: “The week the state stood still.”

    • How long the state stood still: Feb. 6-13.

    We don’t dispute the ferocity of our Monday blizzard, or the hazards faced — and still being faced — by countless individuals, homeowners and businesses.

    But it’s obvious which unique, frightening weather event had the greater impact on the region caught in its grip.

    [ad_2]

    Editorial

    Source link

  • Tricome: The U.S. men’s hockey team really couldn’t help itself

    [ad_1]

    Team USA finally beat Canada to win gold. It was monumental, and the celebration and medal ceremony was beautiful. Then they got into the locker room, and just had to bring politics into it.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Tricome

    Source link

  • Utah begins to cull mountain lions to ‘study’ the effect (Opinion)

    [ad_1]

    This year, in what it calls a “study,” Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources is killing off mountain lions in an effort to increase mule deer herds. It has hired trappers from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, authorizing them to dispatch lions with any method, including banned traps and neck snares.

    The study, covering roughly 8.6 million acres in six management units, will run for at least three years with the goal of indiscriminately exterminating “as many (lions) as possible.”

    Buying into this ancient predator-prey superstition are the nonprofits Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Utah Wild Sheep Foundation. Each has contributed $150,000 to the cull.

    Wildlife managers have no idea how many mountain lions roam the state because estimating populations is essentially impossible. Lions are solitary, elusive and range over vast territories they defend. Unlike ungulates that compensate for mortality with fecundity, predators don’t “overpopulate,” and they’re much slower to recover from culling or hunting.

    I asked veteran mountain lion researcher Dr. Rick Hopkins, board president of the Cougar Fund, what science supports a claim that killing mountain lions generates more deer. “None,” he replied. “For years, agencies have made such claims, but when pushed to provide evidence, they can’t. Predator control has never worked anywhere.”

    Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources estimates the state’s mule deer population at 295,200–73 percent of the “long-term goal.” That goal is based more on desired hunting-license sales than science. Still, considering the natural ebb and flow of deer populations, 73 percent isn’t bad.

    Mountain lions have little or nothing to do with the decline of Utah’s mule deer. Predator populations are limited by available prey. What we learned in Biology 101–that predators control prey—is incorrect: Prey controls predators. Utah has experienced prolonged drought, which peaked in 2022. Reduced forage starved female deer so that fewer fawns were born, and those fawns were sickly and therefore less likely to survive winters. When record-breaking snowfall occurred during the winter of 2022-2023, there were massive mule deer die-offs.

    Utah’s mountain lion cull follows hard upon a 2023 state law that opened up year-round, mountain lion killing without requiring permits. Both this law and the current cull outrage environmental and animal wellness communities. The Western Wildlife Conservancy and Mountain Lion Foundation have filed a lawsuit (ongoing), asserting that the law violates the state’s Right to Hunt and Fish Act, which requires a “reasonable regulation of hunting.”

    The Mountain Lion Foundation dismisses the mountain lion cull study as a “lethal program without rigorous science,” and reports: “Decades of peer-reviewed research across the West show that intensive predator removal rarely delivers sustained or landscape-scale recovery of prey populations. Instead, it often destabilizes predator populations, leading to younger, transient animals, increased conflict and little long-term benefit for deer.”

    And this from Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action: “The science shows that healthy lion populations create robust and healthier deer herds, with lions selectively removing deer afflicted with the 100-percent fatal and highly contagious brain-wasting scourge known as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) caused by malformed, self-replicating proteins called ‘prions.’”

    All threats to mule deer pale in comparison with CWD. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a hunter-support group, calls it “the number one threat to deer hunting.”

    In Utah, CWD has been detected in 356 of the few mule deer checked. Symptoms include fearlessness and loss of coordination, behaviors inviting lion predation, and thereby removal of disease vectors.

    What’s more, mountain lions are resistant to CWD. They deactivate prions through digestion, removing them from the environment. That further protects mule deer as well as possibly protecting people. In 2022, two hunters who ate venison from a CWD-ravaged deer herd in Texas died from prion disease. Given the rarity of human prion infections, this seems an unlikely coincidence.

    The Idaho Capital Sun quoted Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease at the University of Minnesota, as follows: “We are quite unprepared. If we saw a (CWD) spillover right now, we would be in free fall. There are no contingency plans.”

    Dr. Mark Elbroch of Panthera, a nonprofit dedicated to conserving wild felines, told me this: “Heaps of science show the beneficial contributions of mountain lions. Humans are healthier when we live with mountain lions.”

    So are mule deer.

    Ted Williams, a longtime environmental writer, is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West.

    Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

    To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

    [ad_2]

    Ted Williams

    Source link

  • Op-Ed | How we’re fighting a leading cause of death for New Yorkers | amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    As the head of our state’s leading public health agency, I track a seemingly endless list of threats to the health, safety and wellbeing of New Yorkers. Some come from out of nowhere – disease outbreaks or distant wildfires that threaten our air quality – but some are stubbornly persistent. Every February we renew our focus on one of those areas as we mark American Heart Month.

    This year, that comes as our State happens to be celebrating a major milestone: February 19th is the 125th anniversary of the creation of the New York State Department of Health. By creating one of the nation’s first state health departments, lawmakers and elected officials in 1901 were taking a leadership role in public health that continues to this day.

    Take the issue of heart health: Just last month, Governor Hochul unveiled a budget proposal that makes major investments in our fight against cardiovascular disease. Healthy hearts start with healthy diets, which is why Governor Hochul included over $100 million for nutrition programs, food banks and food pantries in the Executive Budget.

    We also want to be ready when the worst happens. That’s why the Governor’s budget includes proposals to strengthen cardiac emergency readiness across New York State – like $3.2 million to establish regional training hubs and ensure communities know how to use Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) and support new, scalable approaches to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education; and New York’s first statewide AED registry with the precise location of every AED across the state, enabling emergency dispatchers to direct individuals to the nearest device, saving critical time during cardiac events.

    To be sure, over the last 125 years we have made major progress. While the percentage of adults who report having a stroke, heart attack or coronary heart disease has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade, investments in public health means cardiovascular disease is no longer a death sentence.

    Moreover, we know the risk of developing cardiovascular disease can be reduced with certain lifestyle changes – like never starting to smoke or quitting smoking, not drinking or reducing alcohol intake, increasing physical activity and eating well. It’s also important to manage blood pressure and cholesterol levels and maintain routine visits with a primary care provider. Successful public health campaigns have tackled all of these issues.

    But our work is not done.

    Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death around the world and here at home in New York. Our research shows that over 1.25 million adults in New York State report that they have cardiovascular disease, meaning they have experienced a heart attack, angina, coronary heart disease or stroke, and an estimated 4.2 million adult New Yorkers report being told by a health professional they have high blood pressure, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.

    Social drivers of health such as lack of access to healthy food, lack of safe places for physical activity, lack of access to affordable medical care, and lack of housing stability contribute to disparities in the burden of high blood pressure and cardiovascular risk. High blood pressure is more prevalent among American Indian/Alaska Native and Black, non-Hispanic adults.

    Data shows we are on the right track – rates of high blood pressure control among adults in New York are higher compared to the national average. Ensuring those suffering from these conditions continue to have access to treatment will be vital to continue this progress.

    With the support of Governor Hochul, we are working with our health care partners across the state to ensure every New Yorker has the ability to protect themselves and their family from cardiovascular disease.

    [ad_2]

    By State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald

    Source link

  • Colorado mountains’ reduced snowpack — a sign of things to come or temporary? (Letters)

    [ad_1]

    Reduced snowpack — a sign of things to come, or a temporary problem?

    Re: “Endangered snowpack,” Denver Post three-part series on climate and ski industry, Feb. 15-17

    The Post seems to be heavily focused on climate change and any weather that supports its philosophy. Over the last few days, there were a number of articles on Colorado’s recent warm/low snow weather and climate change.

    However, this partial analysis doesn’t provide a full picture, including:

    1) For at least the last five years, there have been typical snows and temperatures here.

    2) It ignores the record cold/snow in the eastern United States this year that killed more than 100 people.

    3) Huge lakes froze over this year (such as Erie and Champlain) that rarely freeze. It begs the question — is weather variability being confused with climate change by The Post?

    In examining the complex climate, a complete analysis is needed to provide a comprehensive view– not cherry-picking events that meet a predetermined agenda. I wonder if The Post has a significant “confirmation bias” on this issue, where anything that doesn’t agree gets buried and things that confirm it get endlessly pushed.

    William Turner, Denver

    With the “Endangered Snowpack” article, there’s a color timeline graph of the number of days that individual Colorado ski resorts were open in 2025, plus dismal projections for 2050 and 2090, based upon the assertion that the “damage already done by anthropogenic climate change to the U.S. ski industry is evident”. That may be the case, but such climate change, reputedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, could not have occurred overnight.

    In other words, why are there no graphs for 2015, 2000, 1995, etc.? (If the number of ski days in past decades is not easily obtainable, then the recorded snowfall would probably have made a better metric for this analysis.) Regardless, any valid attempt to predict future snowfall is meaningless if it fails to include statistics on snowfall from previous years.

    John Contino, Golden

    Don’t let politicians get involved in water compact negotiations

    Re: “States fail to meet another deadline for water deal,” Feb. 17 news story

    The Post has been carrying a series on the current drought-caused water shortages and their impact on the ski resorts. These stories are of “above the fold, front-page importance.”  Tucked away in the upper corner of Page 2 on Tuesday is an article about states missing the deadline for an agreement on distribution of the shrinking water flows in the Colorado River and the threat of the Bureau of Reclamation stepping in and setting the distribution. Extended litigation is forecast.

    The dispute between the states boils down to the split between the Upper Basin states and the Lower Basin states, and whether the Upper Basin states should reduce their allotments during low-flow years, which they oppose.

    The Colorado ski industry uses a tremendous amount of Colorado River water to make snow. The Front Range cities divert tremendous amounts of Colorado River water for urban domestic use. Both have purchased sufficient senior water rights to sustain current standards, but these are Colorado state water rights, which could have dubious value in the negotiations over the interstate distribution of available river flows.

    In the current political climate, Colorado, being a so-called “blue state,” may have trouble retaining these rights. The president is throwing out all kinds of threats of retaliation for perceived slights, and he controls the Bureau of Reclamation. In particular, Denver, a “sanctuary city,” could be very vulnerable to having its current diversion severely curtailed.

    I hope the Denver Water Board, as well as city and state officials, and our Congressional representatives, act expeditiously to mitigate any adverse impacts.

    Richard (Dick) Emerson, Denver

    Move beyond false choices in energy policy

    Re: “Global energy demand is rising as Colorado is still restricting operations,” Feb. 15 commentary

    In her opinion column on global energy demand, Lynn Granger creates a false dichotomy when she states, “Colorado politics has framed energy policy as a moral choice rather than a systems challenge.” Energy policy is both a moral choice and a systems challenge.

    Given the scientific consensus that fossil fuels are the root cause of the climate crisis, and given the impacts we’ve seen here in Colorado — including the fires, floods, beetle-kill, meager snowpacks, and the dire condition of the Colorado River — doing anything other than constraining the burning of fossil fuels can be considered a crime against the people of Colorado.

    And, given that the whole planet shares the same atmosphere, any steps that would perpetuate or increase the burning of fossil fuels in Colorado could readily be considered crimes against humanity. Energy policy is indeed a moral choice.

    And energy policy is also a systems challenge. Our challenge is to transition our energy systems from huge, established, and entrenched extractive and polluting industries to systems more reliant on clean energy and more resilient to disruptions by climate-change-driven weather events.

    Fortunately, many of the technologies we need are already available. And they are being implemented right here in Colorado. In 2024, Colorado overtook California as the EV capital of the United States with 25.3% in new EV sales. The electricity delivered by Holy Cross Energy was 85% clean last year.

    We can get to a cleaner, safer, healthier future, but Ms. Granger’s false choice doesn’t help us.

    Chris Hoffman, Boulder

    Lynn Granger’s guest opinion is basically “drill, baby, drill” obfuscated in a word salad. Instead of “drill, baby, drill” she talks about “maximizing existing assets” and “preserving affordability.” She helpfully points out that burning hydrocarbons is an easy and relatively cheap way to provide additional energy, because demand is increasing.

    Granger chastises Colorado leaders for prioritizing the “tired” and “outdated” framing of renewable energy. Her opinion is nothing more than the classic Baby-Boomer approach to everything — “let’s consume it, burn it, use it up, borrow and spend it” and then pass all the problems down to our children and grandchildren.

    When you boil down her opinion, it turns out to be — take the easy way out.

    Roy W. Penny Jr., Denver

    When the world asks us too much, dogs provide comfort

    Re: “Are we asking too much of our dogs?” Feb. 15 commentary

    Clara Bow, the “It Girl,” is reported to have said, “The more I see of men, the more I like dogs.”

    Are we asking too much of our dogs? Absolutely not. Their potential as replacements for human interactions has been underestimated for years. Once, a family’s dog was just a dog. That is not longer true.

    Harry, my third and final dachshund, was invaluable to me during the pandemic, and he is even more invaluable to me now during this wretched presidency. (Does anyone not know by now how psychologically depleting last year and this year have been?)

    The importance of dogs — and other pets — during the pandemic became the theme of an art exhibition at the Lone Tree Arts Center. Harry was featured.

    I’m elderly. Final glide pattern. Mark Twain said, “The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man’s.”

    Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch

    [ad_2]

    DP Opinion

    Source link

  • Susan Shelley: Newsom’s European power trip powered by hot air

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is putting on quite a show. He flew to Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, Germany for the Munich Security Conference and the United Kingdom “to advance partnerships  in climate, business and trade,” as the London visit was described in an official news release.

    Unofficially, Newsom is on a Trump Doesn’t Matter And He’s Wrong About Everything World Tour.

    While the wardrobe department struggles to fit all that on the back of a jacket, let’s look into what exactly the governor signed as he posed for pictures.

    The photos were staged to look like heads of state concluding an historic agreement, something like a strategic arms limitation treaty or a pact to end a war. The flags of the UK, the U.S. and California were displayed side-by-side. Documents in regal red covers were presented for signing. 

    There’s no business like show business.

    The reality was more mundane. Gov. Newsom and UK energy secretary Ed Miliband signed a Memorandum of Understanding. It doesn’t commit anybody to anything. “This Memorandum of Understanding is a voluntary initiative,” Section VI states, “It does not create any legally binding rights or obligations and creates no legally cognizable or enforceable rights or remedies, legal or equitable, in any forum whatsoever.”

    What does it do?

     It states some “objectives” and some “areas of cooperation.” It establishes an “understanding” that “the Participants intend to continue to address climate change” and “promote responsible innovation.” They will do this through the “specific activities” spelled out in Section IV, including “policy dialogues,” “symposia,” “workshops,” “exhibitions” and “industry learning visits.”

    In other words, hot air.

    But there was another announcement from Newsom’s London trip. A British company called Octopus Energy has agreed to invest $1 billion in California green energy enterprises.

    Octopus Energy is in the business of connecting up “smart” devices in the homes of utility customers and managing their electricity use remotely.

    Americans have not been big fans of having distant companies monitoring their activity remotely. That’s what the makers of Ring doorbell cameras discovered after they bought a Super Bowl ad to show off the devices’ neighborhood surveillance function. 

    The CEO of Octopus Energy US said the Memorandum of Understanding “opens up opportunities to bring our smart technology to California, cutting energy bills and improving the customer experience.” He noted that the company is already working with Southern California Edison, “where the Octopus Shift app enables EVs and home batteries to support the grid and give customers more control over when and how they use energy.”

    Cutting energy bills and having more control sounds great. But exactly what is this company selling?

    Last year between August and December, Octopus Energy and Southern California Edison ran a pilot program for up to 1,000 customers. People were paid $125 to connect their electric vehicle and $100 to connect their thermostat. The program’s website explained “How it Works”: “Short time-bound events on hot or high-demand days. You’ll get advance notice when possible.”

    They turn off your air conditioner and car charger. That’s the “event.”

    Customers who don’t want to roast in their homes on a hot day or who need their cars charged sooner can override the “event,” but then they don’t get paid. Customers who suffer through it “could earn over $625 this year with your smart devices.”

    This is called “demand response” or “demand management.” It’s one of the ways the California government is trying to package a declining standard of living as global leadership on climate. Thanks to the blithering idiocy of the state’s energy policy, which has a target of replacing reliable, affordable, continuous sources of electricity with 100% sunshine and breezes by 2045, the government has been looking for ways to persuade people to do without electricity at the times they need it most.

    A February 3 article in POWER magazine reported Octopus is partnering with “virtual power plant operator Voltus” to market “Flexibility-as-a-Service” in four major U.S. markets, including New York and California. Octopus will “supply Voltus with aggregations of residential consumer devices – smart thermostats, electric vehicles and home batteries – beginning in 2026.” This “residential capacity” will be integrated into Voltus’ virtual power plants, the power will be available to dispatch to somebody else, and this will “help data centers, utilities and grid operators manage accelerating AI-driven load growth,” according to the companies. 

    This is what Octopus Energy sells. But the announcement from Gov. Newsom wasn’t about what the company is selling. It was about the company investing $1 billion in California. What are they buying, and why?

    According to a February 17 report in Renewables Now, “Octopus will back two Californian carbon removal companies focused on grassland restoration and reforestation, which have several Big Tech companies lined up as carbon credit offtakers.” The company “will also invest in heat batteries and will acquire a solar and battery project in California, expected to become fully operational by July 2026.”

    Whatever the merits of these endeavors – carbon credit sales have their critics across the political spectrum – the question is whether there was a political reason that these investments are being made in connection with Gov. Newsom’s visit

    [ad_2]

    Susan Shelley

    Source link

  • Letters: Aisha Wahab’s BART anger is campaign theater

    [ad_1]

    Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

    Wahab’s BART anger is campaign theater

    Re: “Irvington station project delays irk area officials” (Page A1, Feb. 5).

    The frustration around the Irvington BART station is understandable, but what rings hollow is the sudden outrage from Aisha Wahab, who has been absent from the regional transportation conversation until launching a campaign for Congress.

    [ad_2]

    Letters To The Editor

    Source link

  • Trump’s revenge tour could have thousands of federal agents in Colorado next (Letters)

    [ad_1]

    Federal agents coming en masse to Colorado next?

    RE: “Trump plans to host governors at White House, but only Republicans,” Feb. 8 news story

    President Trump’s initial ban on Democratic governors from the National Governors Association meeting at the White House was bad enough. Worse, for Colorado, Trump personally uninvited Gov. Jared Polis from the bipartisan dinner (with gubernatorial spouses) that follows. It’s obvious Trump is royally enraged at our state.

    Why? Recall: Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk and current MAGA martyr, is sitting in state prison, beyond the reach of Trump’s presidential pardon. And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert was a key Republican vote in forcing the release of the Epstein files — in revenge, Trump cancelled a big water project in her district.

    But Trump is never really done with revenge, is he?

    Don’t be surprised if Trump targets Colorado as the next stop on the ICE circus tour. Aside from his pre-existing grievances against us, we’re a natural target. Deep blue state. A “sanctuary city” as the state capital, run (like Minneapolis) by another young, earnest, progressive mayor. Tons of undocumented immigrants, easily swept up in the dragnet.

    Coloradans need to start preparing.

    Marty Rush, Salida

    Political Armageddon could really be on the horizon

    Re: “The problem with making every election an existential threat for the U.S.,” Feb. 8 commentary

    While I appreciate David M. Drucker’s notion that we need not declare that the sky is falling before and after each election, I do believe this administration and its Republican cohorts in the House and Senate have crossed some governance red lines that contradict the basic principles this country was founded on.

    Shooting and beating American citizens in the streets, demolishing history, covering up obvious crimes, threatening our allies, targeting political adversaries and using the office for personal enrichment are just a few things that have occurred and gone unchecked by powers that control Congress.

    Most recently, they have been trying their absolute hardest to preserve power or at least limit the damage in the upcoming elections with their calls for gerrymandered districts, laws that will restrict voting and a needless investigation into a settled election.

    While Drucker points out the pendulum frequently swings back in our politics, I fear this time the damage left behind by the lack of checks and balances will exist for many election cycles to come. For these reasons, the next election and certainly the following could be political Armageddon, resulting in the sky actually falling on this republic.

    [ad_2]

    DP Opinion

    Source link

  • AI out of control? How a single article is sending shock waves with an apocalyptic warning

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    That’s the message that has caught fire in the media-tech world when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI).

    This column, for what it’s worth, is being written by a fallible human being on a battered keyboard with no technological assistance.

    It’s extremely rare–once in a blue moon–that I read a piece that completely changes my view of an issue.

    Like most people, I have viewed the rise of AI with a mixture of concern, skepticism and bemusement.

    DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING AI BECAUSE OF A BIG MESSAGING PROBLEM

    It’s fun to conjure up images on ChatGPT, for instance, and I get that some people use it for hyperspeed research. But then you hear anecdotes about AI screwing up math problems or spewing stuff that’s simply untrue.

    Sure, we’ve all seen warnings that this fast-growing technology will cost some people their jobs, but I assumed that would be mainly in Silicon Valley. The era of plane travel didn’t wipe out passenger trains or buses, though it was curtains for the horse-and-buggy business.

    But now comes Matt Shuman, who works in AI, and he’s not simply joining the prediction sweepstakes. He tells us what is happening right now.

    Last year, he says, “new techniques for building these models unlocked a much faster pace of progress. And then it got even faster. And then faster again. Each new model wasn’t just better than the last… it was better by a wider margin, and the time between new model releases was shorter. I was using AI more and more, going back and forth with it less and less, watching it handle things I used to think required my expertise.”

    On Feb. 5, two major companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, released new models that Shuman likens to “the moment you realize the water has been rising around you and is now at your chest.”

    Rude prompts made ChatGPT more accurate. Polite ones scored lower. Tone changed the outcome. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

    Bingo: “I am no longer needed for the actual technical work of my job. I describe what I want built in plain English, and it just … appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave.”

    Wait, there’s more. The new GPT model “wasn’t just executing my instructions. It was making intelligent decisions. It had something that felt, for the first time, like judgment. Like taste. The inexplicable sense of knowing what the right call is that people always said AI would never have. This model has it, or something close enough that the distinction is starting not to matter.”

    This goes well beyond the geeky world of techies, in case you were feeling immune. “Law, finance, medicine, accounting, consulting, writing, design, analysis, customer service. Not in ten years. The people building these systems say one to five years. Some say less. And given what I’ve seen in just the last couple of months, I think ‘less’ is more likely.”

    AI RAISES THE STAKES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. HERE’S HOW TO GET IT RIGHT

    My knee-jerk reaction is, well, I’ll be okay because no super-smart bot could talk about news on TV or podcasts with the same attitude and verve that I do. Then I remember, even as a writer, that news organizations are increasingly relying on AI.

    What about musicians who bring soul to their rock ’n roll or bop to their pop? Well, the most popular AI singer is Xania Monet. Some fans were stunned to discover she wasn’t real, though created by an actual poet, Telisha “Nikki” Jones, and most listeners didn’t care. In fact, “Xania” now has a multimillion-dollar recording deal.

    One other sobering thought: “Dario Amodei, who is probably the most safety-focused CEO in the AI industry, has publicly predicted that AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years.”

    Gulp.

    Woman scrolling through apps.

    Experts predict that AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years. This statistic comes as concerns relating to job security mount around technology. (Cheng Xin/Getty Images)

    This has really hit the media echo chamber, reverberating from Axios to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, among others.

    The fact that Matt Shuman presents this in a measured tone, not a sky-is-falling shout, adds to his credibility.

    Anthropic, for its part, released a study that defended its Claude Opus model, “against any attempt to autonomously exploit, manipulate, or tamper” with a company’s operations “in a way that raises the risk of future catastrophic outcomes.”

    The report added: “We do not believe it has dangerous coherent goals that would raise the risk of sabotage, nor that its deception capabilities rise to the level of invalidating our evidence.”

    95% OF FACULTY SAY AI MAKING STUDENTS DANGEROUSLY DEPENDENT ON TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNING: SURVEY

    Meanwhile, National Review provides a counterweight to what’s called “doomerism.”

    For one thing, “most predictions anticipate that AI will be a top-down disruption rather than a bottom-up phenomenon.”

    For another, writes Noah Rothman, “there is almost no room in the discourse for undesirable outcomes that fall short of catastrophism. After all, modesty and prudence do not go viral.”

    And what about the positive impact?

    businesswoman looking stressed out while working on a laptop in an office at night

    Concerns around AI have led to the rise of “doomerism.” Though experts say that “modesty and prudence” in AI discourse “do not go viral.” (iStock)

    “Rather than wiping out whole sectors, it is just as possible that the workers displaced by AI will be retained in the sectors in which they’re already employed.

    It defies logic to assume that an industry that grows as rapidly as AI is predicted to will not need human data scientists, research analysts, specialized engineers, and, yes, even support and administrative staff. In addition, sectors such as health care, agriculture, and emerging industries will require as much, or even more, human talent than they currently employ.”

    The conservative magazine is also annoyed that “participants in this debate default to the assumption that the only solution to AI’s disaggregating potential, whatever its scale, is big government.”

    Well, take your pick.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    If AI, which can now code well enough to reproduce itself, doesn’t wipe out zillions of jobs, or society finds ways to adapt, we can all breathe a very human sigh of relief.

    And if artificial intelligence is as destructive as Shuman’s alarming article says it already is, we can’t say we weren’t warned–but perhaps we can harness it to do our jobs for us while we work three days a week with three-hour lunches.

    I’m agnostic at this point, except to say it’s going to be a wild ride.

    Howard Kurtz is a media and political analyst and the former host of FOX News Channel’s MediaBuzz. Based in Washington, D.C., he joined the network in 2013 and regularly appears on Special Report with Bret Baier and The Story with Martha MacCallum among other programs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • OPINION: Swipe fees are a concern

    [ad_1]

    By Tom Hoye 

    In a recent opinion piece for the Taunton Daily Gazette, the author made the claim that consumers in Massachusetts “don’t need to be concerned with credit card ‘swipe fees.’” However, this could not be further from the truth. Costs are still on the rise for families in Massachusetts, and with the holiday season in full swing, that is more relevant now than ever before. While tariffs are certainly taking their toll, the impact of credit card swipe fees cannot be ignored as they now make up the second largest operating expense for business owners and drive prices higher for consumers.

    While businesses in Massachusetts cannot add an upfront surcharge to account for swipe fees, there’s no doubt that when these fees rise, merchants are forced to increase prices across the board to keep their doors open. This means even those who use cash end up paying higher prices as a result of card users.  Surcharging is just a band-aid for retailers to recoup some of these costs — but it is not a solution. Retailers don’t like them either as they get blamed for the credit card’s outrageous fees. Massachusetts law might block a line item surcharge, but make no mistake that merchants and consumers are still paying swipe fees.

    The more those fees grow, the more merchants will have no choice but to raise their prices to account for the overhead, just as they would for any other expense. In fact, families here in state and across the country are paying an extra $1,800 a year on average as prices increase to account for the growing expense of swipe fees.

    Whenever you swipe a credit card at your favorite restaurant or local shop, the business owner incurs a swipe fee, which is a percentage of the transaction that’s paid to credit card companies and major banks. In other words, Massachusetts’ small business owners have to watch while a portion of their hard-earned revenue is siphoned away from their communities to line the pockets of executives on Wall Street. In 2024 alone, our state paid over $2.9 billion in swipe fees, money that could have been used to increase wages, improve employee benefits, and lower costs.

    Unfortunately, thanks to credit card companies, this issue will not fix itself. These companies dominate the payments industry, and increase swipe fees without hesitation thanks to the cartel-style price fixing scheme they’ve employed with major banks to ensure fees continue going up. Massachusetts simply can’t afford the status quo, especially as the cost of living exceeds the national average and the cost of things like raising a child in this state is 50 percent higher than the rest of the country.

    It’s clear we need a legislative fix to level the playing field and thankfully one already exists in the form of the Credit Card Competition Act.

    This bill, a bipartisan initiative supported by both Democrats and Republicans as well as the overwhelming majority of the public, would offer merchants and consumers the relief they’ve been seeking for years by allowing businesses to choose between at least two credit card networks for processing transactions. By fostering a competitive environment, the Credit Card Competition Act would incentivize credit card companies to lower their swipe fees and improve their services. The bill would save Massachusetts businesses and consumers an estimated $438 million a year, allowing merchants to not only pay their employees more but also lower prices for their customers who are still reeling from inflation and economic uncertainty.

    The deck is stacked against Main Street when it comes to swipe fees. The only beneficiaries are Wall Street executives and bank CEOs. Until the Credit Card Competition Act is passed, swipe fees will continue burdening our local businesses and putting pressure on families who are already struggling to afford necessities. The Credit Card Competition Act can truly shake the status quo and bring about the change we desperately need. I hope U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey along with our entire congressional delegation will take this message to heart and throw their support behind this bill.

    Tom Hoye is the former mayor of Taunton. He is currently the register of probate for Bristol County and the owner of several businesses.

     

    [ad_2]

    Submitted article

    Source link

  • CAROL ROTH: Trump is right to worry about interest rates — but there’s a price to pay

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    This administration was handed a fiscal mess, and with that a difficult path. Our debt/GDP is in the neighborhood of 120%, the level of an emerging market in crisis, held together by the U.S. dollar still being a major reserve currency and trade currency, as well as the importance and relative stability of our economy and financial markets.

    Our government continues to run massive deficits — the type you might see during a recession or war, not during a time of GDP expansion. And we are now in a place where interest expense on our national debt exceeds our spending on defense. As historian Niall Ferguson’s eponymous Ferguson’s Law says, “any great power that spends more on debt servicing than on defense risks ceasing to be a great power.”

    Given that higher interest rates beget higher debt servicing costs, and that we have an increasing amount of debt to finance, as well as trillions of dollars in debt to refinance this year, President Donald Trump is right to be concerned about interest rates.

    But there is no free lunch.

    LEAVITT ACCUSES SEN TILLIS OF HOLDING US ECONOMY ‘HOSTAGE’ OVER FED NOMINATION DISPUTE

    Kevin Warsh, former governor of the U.S. Federal Reserve, during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Spring meetings at the IMF headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    While the Fed has lowered its target interest rates, that more directly relates to interest rates at the short end of the yield curve (that is, short-dated Treasury securities). The market controls the long end of the curve (that is, longer-dated Treasury securities, like the 10-, 20- and 30-year maturities). And we have seen that those yields stay stubbornly elevated.

    Ultimately, there will likely need to be some form of yield curve control (measures that bring and hold down the longer-term bond yields). If we continue to see our interest expenses rise, that will drive a larger deficit. That means more debt financing, which will drive up yields, make interest again more expensive and create a debt spiral until the U.S. and global bond markets are thrown into turmoil.

    But, as we have seen with Fed meddling and government overspending, there is a cost to Fed intervention. The price paid will likely continue to inflate assets (on a nominal basis). While we need this because the value of stocks and housing decreasing over a period of time would likely directly and indirectly lead to a decrease in government receipts (aka tax revenue), it has the same effect on increasing deficits and exploding the cost of debt. This again means that some action will be taken.

    GOP SENATOR VOWS TO BLOCK TRUMP’S FED CHAIR PICK UNLESS POWELL PROBE IS DROPPED

    This is also why the positioning of Fed Chair appointee Kevin Warsh as a hawk (one who prefers tighter Fed policy) vs. a dove (one who prefers looser monetary policy) doesn’t really matter. Our fiscal situation and basic math will force him and the Fed to intervene in markets and lower interest rates one way or another.

    The price paid for holding our fiscal house together will likely be inflation. This will continue to erode the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and drive a bigger wedge between the wealthy and the middle class in America.

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

    But intervention is only a temporary solution. It buys time, but it doesn’t solve the problem.

    Unless government spending is reduced, not only through lowering interest expense, but across all categories, or growth is so massive that in either scenario the deficit is eliminated, the core problem doesn’t go away. It just gets held back for a short period of time and then we will be in the same situation again.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Our government continues to run massive deficits — the type you might see during a recession or war, not during a time of GDP expansion. 

    And, if you are familiar with Congress, there doesn’t seem to be any political will from either of the major political parties to spend within an actual budget.

    So yes, interest rates are a problem, as is government spending. Warsh will be forced to help, whether he likes it or not, and we will all pay a price.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CAROL ROTH

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Letters: Betty Yee is our best choice to run the state

    [ad_1]

    Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

    Yee is best choice to run the state

    Re: “Sparks fly at initial debate” (Page A1, Feb. 5).

    California doesn’t need a governor who “wins” a two-hour TV show. We need a leader who can fix the budget, steady our economy and make government actually work.

    [ad_2]

    Letters To The Editor

    Source link

  • Zepeda: Why Millennial managers are burning out at work | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    In Brief:
    • Millennials became the largest managerial cohort in the U.S. in 2025, with growing workplace influence.
    • Nearly half of are part of the , balancing childcare and eldercare.
    • Lack of formal leadership training has left many unprepared for people-first management demands.
    • Burnout among Millennial managers threatens and organizational stability.

    The other day I was sitting in back-to-back meetings when two notifications hit at once.

    My son’s school called. He’d fallen and needed to be picked up immediately. At the same time, an email from my mom popped up asking for help understanding her prescriptions.

    Work was on fire, and I was supposed to be everywhere at once. This is the reality for Millennial managers right now. We became the largest managerial cohort in America mid-2025. Our influence on organizations has never been higher. Neither has our responsibility.

    The sandwich generation squeeze

    Millennials are managing teams while managing childcare and eldercare simultaneously. Forty-six percent of Millennials are now part of the sandwich generation, compared to just 18% of Gen Xers at the same career stage.

    Nearly 78% are providing physical, financial or emotional support to our parents. And 76% say caring for both generations feels like a full-time job.

    The kicker? Most are completely unprepared for this level of support.

    Organizations aren’t seeing this. Nearly half of sandwich caregivers are afraid to talk about eldercare responsibilities at work. There’s an unspoken rule that it’s okay to mention childcare, but not taking care of aging parents, and that silence weighs heavy.

    The leadership style that’s breaking us

    Here’s what makes this worse: Millennials are trying to lead differently.

    They’re attempting to be more transparent, vulnerable, authentic and collaborative than the managers we had. Millennials are trying really hard not to be like the Gen X and Baby Boomer leaders who managed them.

    And while this approach gets the best out of teams, it’s also the most taxing leadership style possible.

    You have to work harder, longer and in more varied ways with your team to make it work. The emotional toll on Millennial managers is higher than what previous generations experienced because we’re trying to be more human and people-first.

    They’re pressured from the top to deliver results. They’re pressured from the bottom by Gen Z employees who expect them to model the they champion.

    The problem? They can’t achieve that balance themselves.

    Research shows Millennials are the most stressed generation at work. Fifty-one percent report feeling highly stressed, compared to 37% of Gen X and older workers. They hit peak burnout at 25 years old—17 years earlier than the average American.

    The training gap nobody talks about

    Most Millennial managers report receiving little to no formal leadership training.

    They entered the workforce during the Great Recession when organizations cut leadership development programs because they thought we’d just job hop anyway. Those training programs and corporate ladders that helped previous generations advance? Gone.

    So, they’re figuring out this emotionally demanding leadership style on their own. Learning through bumps and bruises. Feeling pretty lonely about it.

    There are very few resources out there that help them be positive, people-first leaders while also delivering the results their organizations expect.

    What happens when the middle breaks?

    Here’s what organizations are missing: Millennial managers are the retention linchpin.

    Fifty-two percent of employees consider their direct manager their most trusted source for company updates. They turn to their manager first to understand how company changes affect their role and rely on their manager for career coaching and feedback.

    When middle managers disengage, it spreads like wildfire. Employees who were previously all in start clocking in and checking out.

    The pandemic showed organizations how hard people could work when pushed. Many decided to keep that pace as the new normal, so expectations are higher and pressure is constant.

    And Millennials came into this expecting work to be meaningful, purposeful and enjoyable. When they can’t get that — when there’s dissonance between what they value and what they experience — it’s hard to reconcile.

    They’re trying to create meaningful work environments for their teams while burning out.

    The people holding organizations together are quietly falling apart. And if we don’t address this invisible crisis, the cascading effect on employee engagement, attrition, and work culture will be significant.

    It’s crucial that all of us spend more time helping Millennials thrive. They are the massive middle that keeps most organizations running well. They are the middle that is most connected to the rest of the system they operate in. They are also the middle that is the most likely to break based on everything I’ve said. And when the middle breaks, everything breaks. Can your business handle that?

    Jaime Zepeda is principal consultant at Best Companies Group, which helps organizations build high-performing and highly engaged employees. He can be reached at: [email protected].


    [ad_2]

    Opinion

    Source link

  • Op-Ed | Shared housing is the missing lifeline our neighbors deserve – amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    Every day in New York City, thousands of people are stuck in shelters not because they are unprepared to move on, but because the kind of housing they can afford simply does not exist. One of us works inside that reality as a rehousing director for social service providers. The other works on legislation that can change it. From both vantage points, the conclusion is the same. Our city needs modern shared housing, and the recently introduced bill in the City Council would finally allow it for the first time in decades.

    Shared housing, in plain terms, means giving people their own private room to call home while sharing certain facilities like a kitchen or a lounge. It can take many forms. Sometimes it is a traditional Single Room Occupancy setup where each person has a private room and shares basic amenities. Sometimes it is a small suite with a few private rooms arranged around a shared kitchen. In other cases it resembles dorm style cohousing, where people have private space but also share larger communal areas. It’s a formal category for the informal arrangement many New Yorkers have – roommates.

    This type of housing is not for everyone, but for many New Yorkers it is the ideal fit. That includes young adults starting out, single working people, older adults on fixed incomes, newcomers trying to find stability, and people leaving the shelter system who simply need a safe, affordable room so they can rebuild their lives. Many New Yorkers already rely on informal versions of shared housing by splitting family sized apartments with multiple roommates. Those arrangements sometimes offer opportunities but often leave people with no tenant protections and very few safety standards. Illegal partitions, overcrowding, and sudden displacement are common. Regulated shared housing offers a far safer and more stable alternative.

    For decades, New York City relied on this category of housing to serve single adults and working people. When those homes were effectively outlawed, they disappeared. As they disappeared, homelessness rose. This is not a coincidence. It is what happens when an entire rung of the housing ladder is removed. People fall, and they stay down. 

    We have both engaged with neighbors who say they oppose shared housing because they worry about vulnerable populations. We share the concern but not the conclusion. Outlawing shared housing does not protect anyone. It traps them in shelters.

    We have both met people who are entirely ready to leave shelter. They have their documents. They have their voucher. They attend every required appointment. And still, they wait because the type of unit they can afford does not exist. Each time someone is told that nothing new is available, the hope drains from them. The toll this takes on a person is not abstract. It is immediate and human. Keeping things the way they are has real consequences.

    The shared housing legislation introduced in the City Council finally gives us a way to rebuild this missing housing type with modern safeguards that reflect everything we learned from the mistakes of the past. The bill sets strict safety requirements for sprinklers, ventilation, and electrical capacity. It caps suite-style units at three rooms so that we are not creating overcrowded or unstable living conditions. It includes privacy protections that ensure every resident has a real door they can lock. These rules make it impossible to recreate the substandard housing that once gave shared units a bad reputation. This is not a return to the past. It is a reinvention built on dignity and safety.

    Some living situations are not intended to be permanent. Some are stepping stones. And our policies must reflect that reality. Thousands of New Yorkers would thrive in a well designed suite or Single Room style home, especially if it means they can finally exit shelter and build stability. Creating this housing would also free up larger apartments for families who desperately need them.

    Some argue that opposing shared housing is the progressive position. We strongly disagree. It is not progressive to insist on a housing model that does not exist at the scale we need. It is not progressive to ask a sixty-year-old on a fixed income to compete for a one-bedroom apartment that costs more than their entire monthly benefit. That is not compassion. That is denial.

    If you want to understand why real progress is needed, talk to someone who has been living in a shelter for a year with no viable options. Progress is giving that person a safe, regulated, private room they can afford. Progress is acknowledging that our city has changed and our housing tools must change with it.

    We support this legislation because we know what it will mean for real people. It will mean fewer older adults languishing in dorm style shelters. It will mean fewer medically fragile people sleeping three feet from strangers. It will mean faster placements, better outcomes, and stability for thousands who do not have it today. 

    This is our chance to rebuild the missing rung on the housing ladder. The people we serve deserve nothing less.

    [ad_2]

    By Gabriel Ocasio-Cortez, Rehousing Director, and Council Member Erik Bottcher

    Source link

  • Everyone is comparing Donald Trump to the wrong fascist

    [ad_1]

    February 01, 2026

    Franco’s regime in Spain used tactics like economic isolation, church-state fusion and secret police that more closely mirror the president’s approach than Hitler’s Gestapo.

    By


    Rachelle Wilson Tollemar, The Conversation


    Philly Gift Show - Sauces

    [ad_2]

    Rachelle Wilson Tollemar, The Conversation

    Source link

  • Larry Wilson: How in the world to talk about Trump

    [ad_1]

    Traveling outside the U.S., it used to be enough to disassociate yourself from the danger to the world posed by Donald Trump by saying you’re from California.

    Now, as he sows chaos that will upset generations of international order, the American embarrassment is too profound for that. You can proudly claim your home state, but you still come from the country that twice elected a Caesarian tyrant, and there’s no hiding from that. Who does the world imagine we will elect next? If the answer is the acolyte JD Vance, that’s very cold comfort for the nation and the globe.

    Embarrassment isn’t the worst thing. Living unembarrassed ranks below shelter, food, family, friends, love. And traveling is a privilege, one that I’ve been lucky enough to pursue in the half-century since I graduated college and headed to Europe with a backpack for five months, on the very cheap, before coming home to create a career and a real life.

    Now, summers, I get to stay in real hotels, instead of under bridges or on beaches or in youth hostels.

    What to say to the people encountered in restaurants and bars? Sorry? In the 1970s, during the Vietnam war, American kids in Europe used to put Canadian flags on their knapsacks when hitchhiking to increase the likelihood of being picked up.

    Canada’s a nice option.

    Prime Minister Mark Carney was speaking truth to power when he said last week: “The world has changed, Washington has changed. There is almost nothing normal now in the United States. That is the truth.”

    In Davos, he told the other, perfectly normal leaders of the world that the manic insanity of the president of the United States means that they have to accept the fact that we have reached the end of the rules-based global order that our nation once championed. He got a standing ovation, which the assembled business and political bigwigs almost never give to anyone at the annual meeting. Well, bully for him, and them. The ovation drove Trump nuts. And meanwhile, we are stuck with him, for three more years of awful folly.

    It’s too overwhelming, the totality of the ways in which the current president has destroyed our place in the world in a long-short single year. Threatening to take Greenland, to make our northern neighbor the 51st state, to take military action against our southern neighbor, to take the Panama Canal.

    [ad_2]

    Larry Wilson

    Source link

  • DR. BEN CARSON: Patients should never fear political bias in healthcare

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    We all have deeply-held beliefs, and thankfully, we live in a nation where we can freely express our ideas without fear of government oppression. That freedom is one of our nation’s greatest strengths. But freedom also comes with responsibility — especially for those entrusted with the lives of others. Recently, several shocking incidents have brought to light a disturbing trend: doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals are putting politics and ideology ahead of their duty to protect the health and safety of their patients. 

    The examples are legion. A nurse in Florida posted on TikTok wishing White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a severe fourth-degree tear during childbirth. A nurse in Virginia uploaded a video suggesting ways to injure ICE agents, urging viewers to “make their lives miserable.” Detectives in New York City who were injured while making an arrest were reportedly treated rudely and disrespectfully by hospital workers because staff suspected that they were ICE agents. Even internationally, in Sydney, Australia, two healthcare workers threatened to kill an Israeli man and claimed they had harmed Jewish patients in their care. Antisemitic conduct by health care providers in Britain is so pervasive that the secretary of state for Health and Social Care admitted that it was “completely failing to protect Jewish patients.” These incidents are more than just shocking, unacceptable lapses in judgement. They are violations of the trust and ethical responsibility that are central to medicine. 

    Trust and morality are the bedrock of good healthcare. Unfortunately, that trust has already been tested and broken in recent years. The poor handling of COVID-19, combined with widespread misinformation about vaccines and the efficacy of masking, to name just two, left many Americans skeptical of the health care providers and the public health establishment generally. Now, when medical professionals publicly express hostility or wish harm on individuals, it deepens a rift that puts the public at risk. Common sense tells us that no one should have to worry that a healthcare provider’s political or religious beliefs will affect their ability to care. Yet these incidents make that concern all too real. 

    CHRISTIAN NURSE WHO FACED ‘RACIAL ABUSE’ FROM TRANSGENDER PATIENT REINSTATED AFTER SUSPENSION

    Medical misconduct includes breaches of ethical duty and intentional bias. When a health care professional publicly wishes harm on someone they have never met, they violate the most fundamental principles of their profession. How can patients be expected to trust a system in which those entrusted with their lives might treat them differently because of their views, religion, or background? And what happens when a patient challenges them or is perceived to be “difficult”? Because of this fear, patients may delay seeking care, or choose to avoid care entirely. This breach of trust is a tangible threat to public health.

    During my years as a neurosurgeon, I treated patients from a variety of backgrounds, beliefs and personalities. None of that mattered on the operating table. Medicine demands that doctors and nurses set aside personal biases and focus entirely on the well-being of the patient. If your mind is occupied with judgments about a patient’s beliefs or lifestyle, you simply cannot practice good medicine. An injured drunk driver must receive the same level of care as the person they injured in an accident. Anything less is unethical and unlawful. Indeed, even in warfare — where the stakes are literally life and death — battlefield medics are under ethical and legal obligations to treat enemy wounded so long as the wounded no longer presents a military threat. 

    At the heart of the matter, we have drifted as a society from the moral compass and principles of faith on which our nation was founded. Without a higher authority such as God determining the inherent value of human life, the value of life becomes subjective and changeable. 

    Medical professionals hold a unique position of power and trust, and with that comes a higher standard of accountability. Using one’s professional status to promote harm, encourage violence, or suggest that certain people deserve mistreatment is utterly unacceptable. Those who engage in this behavior should face severe consequences, including loss of their license and employment. The public relies on healthcare providers to act in the best interest of every patient, regardless of personal beliefs. 

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

    Violations of professional ethics must carry real consequences, including revocation of medical licenses and job termination, so that others understand that these behaviors are intolerable.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Ultimately, the health care industry exists to heal people — not to advance political agendas. Professionals who cannot meet this standard should not be entrusted with the health and lives of others. Protecting trust in healthcare is not optional; it is essential to the safety and well-being of all Americans. It does us no good to have amazing ways to heal the sick if patients do not trust us to act in their best interests, regardless of any other factor. 

    The medical profession demands more than skill — it demands character, integrity, and compassion. If we allow personal beliefs to compromise care, we risk lives. Common sense, foundational faith and ethical responsibility must guide our healthcare system if we hope to maintain trust and ensure that every patient is treated with dignity, respect, and the care they deserve.

    Benjamin S. Carson Sr., M.D. was the 17th secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is the founder and chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute and an Emeritus Professor of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Op-ed: Dems, MAHA Republicans team up to prevent deregulation of pesticides

    [ad_1]

    Democratic U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, Maine, has successfully teamed up with MAHA Republicans to stop the government from passing a bill that would exempt pesticides from state and federal regulation.

    “If there is a moment in time where there is interest in, say, for instance, changing the rules around glyphosate or ultra-processed foods, we should look for those opportunities to gain wins,” Pingree said.

    Tucked into the appropriations bill that funds the EPA and Interior was language — a “preemption rider” — that would have prevented states, localities, and federal authorities from taking any action against the use of approved pesticides, including glyphosate, the main ingredient in the pesticide Roundup.

    During the summer, Republicans had quietly included the rider in the draft funding bill. It would have shielded pesticide manufacturers, both domestic and foreign chemical companies, from lawsuits by individuals claiming harm or cancer from products like glyphosate (Roundup).

    The manufacturer of Roundup, Bayer (formerly Monsanto), has paid billions in settlements to resolve thousands of claims that glyphosate causes cancer. The proposed bill would protect pesticide manufacturers from ever having to pay damages to the families of individuals who die from pesticide use.

    The “federal preemption” effort would have stopped state and local governments from requiring health warnings or restricting harmful chemicals beyond what the EPA mandates.

    There are more than 57,000 registered pesticides. Some pesticides are made of synthetic chemicals. There are over 750 different herbicide products containing glyphosate. Other pesticides are derived from natural materials. Soap-based pesticides with ammonium or potassium salts are permitted in organic farming.

    The bill would require the EPA to conduct a thorough risk assessment for each pesticide before labeling, which can take up to 12 years, making it legally impossible to add new state-required warnings.

    U.S. Rep. Pingree, an organic farmer from North Haven, Maine, and the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, demanded the provisions be removed during final negotiations over government funding. She quietly back-channeled with “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) activists to apply significant pressure on members of Congress.

    The Ranking Republican, Mike Simpson (Idaho), responded by claiming that “MAHA moms,” while he agrees with them on many issues, were acting on “misinformation,” that the bill was merely designed to ensure consistent labeling, not to protect corporations like Bayer. “I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.”

    “What does he think, we’re idiots?” responded MAHA advocate against pesticides, Kelly Ryerson. “Americans of all political beliefs simply do not want to be poisoned by pesticides!”

    “This is completely wrong, and some of these pesticides are linked to cancer and infertility. Why on earth would we want to shield the companies?” said Rep Thomas Massie (Republican, Kentucky).

    “Florida’s farmers and families deserve protection from harmful chemicals that threaten our food supply, water, and health,” said Rep Anna Paulina Luna (Republican, Fl-13).

    Lacking the votes, Simpson conceded, acknowledging that Democrats had put up a good fight and it wasn’t worth holding up the entire appropriations bill.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to hear a case (Monsanto Company v. Durnell) that involved a $1.25 billion Missouri jury verdict. The core question is whether federal law overrides state laws that require cancer warnings.

    Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and now faces over 180,000 claims related to Roundup. The Court recently considered reviewing the case in a closed-door meeting, but has not yet decided whether to proceed.

    “Moms and women will not be silenced,” rallied Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America.

    Within the Republican Party, fissures caused by conflicts between MAGA and MAHA factions are widening.

    Dr. Rob Moir is a nationally recognized and award-winning environmentalist. He is the president and executive director of the Ocean River Institute, a nonprofit based in Cambridge that provides expertise, services, resources, and information not readily available on a localized level to support the efforts of environmental organizations. Please visit www.oceanriver.org for more information.

    [ad_2]

    Brendan Lewis

    Source link

  • Letters: One-time wealth tax won’t provide a long-term fix

    [ad_1]

    Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

    One-time tax won’t provide long-term fix

    Re: “High-stakes wealth tax proposal roils uber rich” (Page A1, Jan. 25).

    The proposed Billionaire Tax Act, imposing a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of Californians whose net worth is $1 billion or more, needs reconsideration.

    [ad_2]

    Letters To The Editor

    Source link

  • Moab is not a place for “nuclear tourism.” The DOE can’t sugarcoat spent nuclear fuel. (Opinion)

    [ad_1]

    In the early 1980s, southeast Utah was targeted as a potential dump site for high-level nuclear waste, the kind that comes from nuclear reactors. The Department of Energy considered storing 8,000 tons of this highly radioactive material near Canyonlands National Park, boosting the idea as spurring “nuclear tourism.”

    Who wouldn’t want to see Delicate Arch in the morning and casks of plutonium in the afternoon?

    Like the radioactive waste itself, some bad ideas won’t disappear. Southeast Utah is in the crosshairs once again, aided by a $2 million Biden-era grant given to two pro-nuclear nonprofits based in California, Mothers for Nuclear and Native Nuclear, along with North Carolina State University.

    San Juan County, where I live, is Utah’s only majority-Indigenous county and the state’s poorest. Last year, the county hosted a number of meetings as part of the Energy Department’s “consent-based siting consortia,” an attempt to get buy-in from residents for accepting radioactive waste. At local meetings, Mothers for Nuclear argued that the nuclear industry is much safer than the public has been told.

    It’s true that 40 years ago some locals eagerly pushed for a nuclear dump. One pro-repository activist in Moab even called it preferable to national parks, because parks attracted “drugs, homosexuals, and environmentalists.” Utah’s governor opposed the dump plan, however, and after it was defeated, the town of Moab worked to create a new identity, Now, the Moab area has become an international tourist destination.

    Yet the question of what to do about spent nuclear fuel remains, and the area surrounding Bears Ears National Monument and Canyonlands continues to be targeted as a suitable dumping ground.

    Would welcoming radioactive waste lead to an economic revival? Probably not.

    Though the Cold War rush for uranium created economic booms for San Juan County and Grand County’s town of Moab, prosperity spawned public health crises. Residents of Monticello, San Juan County’s seat, and the site of a uranium mill from 1942 to 1960, awoke to a fine yellow dust on windowsills during the mill’s heyday. Decades later, rates of lung and stomach cancer in the town were found in one study to be twice the state average.

    The Navajo Nation experienced widespread uranium mining in the 20th century, followed by one of the highest incidences of uranium-linked health issues in the United States. In 1979, Tribal land was also the site of the second-largest accidental release of radioactive material in history, after a wastewater pond burst near Church Rock, New Mexico. Only the Chernobyl meltdown seven years later surpassed that disaster.

    Mills for processing uranium are also harmful. After a mill site in Halchita, Utah, was capped in the early 1990s, workers who cleaned it up fell victim to some of the same diseases as uranium miners of the previous generation. Still contaminating air, livestock and humans are more than 500 unreclaimed uranium mines on Navajo land.

    The Navajo Nation banned uranium mining in 2005 and uranium transport in 2012. But Energy Fuels, the company that operates the White Mesa uranium mill just outside San Juan County, secured an exemption from the transport ban in early 2025. The mill has been accepting radioactive waste for years, including waste from Japan and Estonia. Recently, it began processing ore from a mine the company owns just outside Grand Canyon National Park.

    [ad_2]

    Zak Podmore

    Source link